Delhi District Court
Payal vs Corporation Bank on 5 December, 2016
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEHA, CIVIL JUDGE09,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Unique ID. 02401C0049432008
Suit No. 107/2016
Payal
D/o Sh. Parmil Mittal
R/o House No. 514,
Vivekanand Nagar,
Delhi - 110052. .............Plaintiff.
Versus
1. Corporation Bank
Through its Head Office,
The General Manager (Zonal Office),
Rajendra Bhawan, Rajendra Palace,
New Delhi.
2. Sh. Amar Gupta
S/o Sh. Balwant Rai Gupta
R/o House No. DU162,
Pitampura, New Delhi - 110088. ............Defendants.
Suit No : 107/16 Payal Vs. Corporation Bank Page 1 of 22.
SUIT FOR MANDATORY INJUNCTION.
Date of Institution : 05.02.2009
Date of reserving Judgment : 02.11.2016
Date of pronouncement : 05.12.2016
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this Judgment, I shall dispose of the suit for mandatory injunction.
2. Brief facts as stated in the plaint are as follows : 2.1. The plaintiff is living at the address mentioned in the memo of parties with her parents. The defendant No. 1 is a nationalized bank and is sued through its principal officers having control over the affairs of the bank. The defendant No. 2 is the exhusband of the plaintiff. The plaintiff got married with the defendant No. 2 on 8.12.2002 and their marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce granted on 25.8.2007. 2.2. During the plaintiff's matrimonial alliance with the defendant No. 2, she through her husband i.e. defendant No. 2 has got a locker No. 216 opened on 13.10.2002 in the defendant No. 1 bank with its Pitampura Branch, Delhi. The application for the same dated 13.10.2002 was filled up by her in her own handwriting and signed by her. Thereafter, the plaintiff had put her entire valuables therein and they are still lying therein.
Suit No : 107/16 Payal Vs. Corporation Bank Page 2 of 22. 2.3. During the entire duration of plaintiff's matrimonial alliance with the defendant No. 2, she always believed and trusted her husband. After opening of the locker, the plaintiff was made to believe by the defendant No. 2, her husband, that the locker was in their joint name and not in her exclusive name. After knowing this fact, the plaintiff got shocked as she had filled the locker application form for herself only. However, due to their cordial relationship at that time, the plaintiff did not question about said fact to anyone.
2.4. After separation from defendant No. 2, the plaintiff wrote a letter dated 29.8.2006 to the defendant No. 1 stating therein that the locker may not be allowed to be operated unless and until it is opened in her presence and the defendant No. 2. For the purpose of amicable settlement of matrimonial dispute by way of mutual consent divorce, the plaintiff agreed to a pre condition putforth by the defendant No. 2 that the locker in question be allowed to be operated by him solely. Accordingly, plaintiff wrote a letter dated 14.7.2007 to the defendant No. 1 bank thereby allowing the single operation of the locker by her husband i.e. the defendant No. 2. In pursuance of said letter dated 14.7.2007, the defendant No. 2 agreed for divorce with mutual consent. The marriage was dissolved by mutual consent on 25.8.2007. The locker in question did not form part of settlement as recorded in the mutual consent divorce petition.
2.5. On 25.8.2007 itself, the plaintiff wrote a letter to the defendant No. Suit No : 107/16 Payal Vs. Corporation Bank Page 3 of 22. 1 thereby narrating the chain of events and requesting it not to allow operation of locker without her consent and physical presence. Thereafter, when the plaintiff desired to operate the locker, the plaintiff was not permitted by the defendant No. 1 to operate the same. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff wrote another letter dated 20.9.2007 to the defendant no.1 to know the procedure to operate the locker and to actually operate the same to remove her belongings. The said letter was duly responded by the defendant No. 1 bank vide its letter dated 20.9.2007 intimating therein the plaintiff that the locker is in joint name of plaintiff and defendant No. 2 and the same shall not be allowed to be operated unless and until both are physically present and the locker also needs to be surrendered. Thereafter on 24.6.2008, the plaintiff moved an application under Right to Information Act seeking locker related documents. Pursuant thereof, the documents have been furnished to her by the defendant No. 1 vide letter dated 25.7.2008.
2.6. On perusal of the documents furnished by the defendant No. 1, the plaintiff was shocked as it reflected acts of forgery and cheating by the defendant No. 1 bank. The original application dated 13.10.2002 filled up by the plaintiff has been tampered and the name of her exhusband, Amar Gupta (defendant No. 2) has been added later on without any endorsement thereof by the plaintiff or any intimation by the bank to her. The locker operation record also shows that it has been operated by the defendant No. 2 only once and that too without consent and knowledge of the plaintiff.
Suit No : 107/16 Payal Vs. Corporation Bank Page 4 of 22. Rest of the operations were done by the plaintiff herself only. 2.7. The defendant No. 2 enjoys extremely good relations and hold in the Pitampura branch of the defendant No. 1 bank. The officials of defendant No. 1 bank had colluded and connived with defendant No. 2 and made alterations in the original application form dated 13.10.2002 and helped the defendant No. 2 to have illegal access to the locker belonging to plaintiff. The locker contains the plaintiff's valuable jewellery and cash and other items which are owned and belong to her. Defendant No. 2 has no right, title or lien upon the same. The jewellery lying therein is the plaintiff's 'istridhan'. However, due to the illegal acts of defendant No. 1 bank, the plaintiff has been deprived of her right to use her belongings. The defendant No. 1 has no right to refuse the plaintiff to operate the locker owned by her.
2.8. On failure to get any relief from the defendant No. 1, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 30.9.2008 to the defendant no.1 bank calling thereby to allow her to operate her locker. However, the same was not replied. The conduct of defendant No. 1 gives the plaintiff an apprehension that the valuable belongings lying in the locker might have been removed by both the defendants. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking following relief :
"A decree of injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants jointly or severally thereby directing the defendant No. 1 bank to allow the plaintiff to operate her locker Suit No : 107/16 Payal Vs. Corporation Bank Page 5 of 22.
No. 216".
3. The defendants have filed separate written statements. In the written statement filed by the defendant No. 1, the defendant bank has taken preliminary objections that present suit is completely devoid of any cause of action. As per the plaintiff's own admission, till the filing of the present suit, the locker No. 216 was a joint locker as stated in para number 5 and 7 of the plaint. Thereafter, in para Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, the plaintiff relied upon various letters. However, all of the letters describe the said locker to be joint and clearly show that all the allegations regarding the locker to be individual and allegations of tampering and fraud against the bank to be exfacie false.
4. It is stated that the plaintiff and defendant No. 2, being husband and wife, opened a locker in their joint names with instructions that the locker could be operated by either / survivor. Even the fixed deposit created with the bank for opening of the locker is in the joint name of the plaintiff and defendant No. 2. In para No. 15, the plaintiff claims to have come to know about forgery and cheating only on receipt of documents under the RTI Act, whereas all letters written by the plaintiff to the defendant bank describe the locker as joint including the letter written by the plaintiff seeking information under the RTI Act.
5. The averments made in the plaint are self contradictory as the plaintiff vide letters dated 13.7.2007 (concealed from this court) and Suit No : 107/16 Payal Vs. Corporation Bank Page 6 of 22. 14.7.2007, requested the bank to permit the defendant No. 2 to operate the locker independently. More so, the plaintiff vide her letter dated 13.7.2007 had requested the defendant No. 1 to delete her name from this locker upon submission of divorce certificate by the defendant No. 2. However, the bank did not delete the name of the plaintiff on account of letter dated 25.8.2007 and also on account of the fact that the defendant No. 2 did not produce the decree of divorce and did not request the bank to delete the plaintiff's name. Rest of the allegations made in the plaint are denied in the written statement filed by the defendant No. 1.
6. In the written statement filed by the defendant No. 2, the defendant No. 2 has taken preliminary objections that the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 entered into a mutual agreement that the defendant No. 2 would keep the custody of girl child and the plaintiff had given up all her rights towards 'istridhan' and maintenance including right towards the locker in question with defendant No. 1. The plaintiff also undertook not to file any suit / application / petition in future for dowry, alimony or maintenance in para No. 12 of the petition under Section 13B(1) of HMA and para No. 13 of the petition under Section 13B (2) of HMA and therefore, the plaintiff is now barred from filing suit for getting the istridhan / jewellery lying in the locker. The present suit is also barred by res judicata as the issue of istridhan / dowry / alimony / maintenance has already been decided vide order dated 6.8.2007 by Sh. Chandra Gupta, Ld. ADJ, Delhi.
7. It is also stetted that the entire plaint does not disclose any cause of Suit No : 107/16 Payal Vs. Corporation Bank Page 7 of 22. action to file the present suit. The plaintiff and defendant No. 2 jointly applied for the locker, the application form was filled by bank staff and it was signed jointly by the plaintiff and defendant No. 2. Rest of the allegations made in the plaint are denied in the written statement filed by defendant No. 2.
8. Plaintiff has filed replication to the written statement filed by the defendant No. 2. In the replication, the plaintiff has reiterated the averments as made in the plaint.
9. On completion of pleadings, following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 28.1.2011 for consideration :
1. Whether the locker No. 216 in Corporation Bank is in exclusive name of the plaintiff? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of injunction as prayed? OPP.
3. Relief.
10. In plaintiff's evidence, the plaintiff examined herself as PW1 who tendered her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A. PW1 has relied upon the following documents :
1. Certified copy of divorce decree dated 25.8.2007 as Ex.
PW1/1.
2. Office copy of letter dated 29.8.2006 as Ex. PW1/2.
Suit No : 107/16 Payal Vs. Corporation Bank Page 8 of 22.
3. Office copy of letter dated 14.7.2007 as Ex. PW1/3.
4. Office copy of letter dated 25.8.2007 as Ex. PW1/4.
5. Office copy of letter dated 20.9.2007 as Mark A.
6. Reply dated 20.9.2007 of defendant No. 1 as Ex.
PW1/6.
7. Office copy of the RTI application dated 24.6.2008 as Ex. PW1/7.
8. Reply dated 25.07.2008 under RTI Act along with copy of Locker opening form and other records as Ex. PW1/8.
9. Office copy of legal notice dated 30.9.2008 along with postal receipts as Ex. PW1/9 to Ex. PW1/11.
11. PW1 was cross examined at length by the Ld. Counsels for the defendants. Thereafter, the plaintiff's evidence was closed vide order dated 27.8.2014 and the matter was listed for defence evidence.
12. On 14.1.2015, Ld. Counsel for the defendant No. 1 submitted that the defendant No. 1 did not wish to lead any evidence.
13. In defence evidence, the defendant No. 2 examined himself as D2W1. In his evidence by way of affidavit, Ex. D2W1/A, the defendant No. 2 has relied upon the certified copy of Judgment dated 25.8.2007 already Ex. PW1/D3.
14. Ms. Ritika, Assistant Manager, Corporation Bank, Pitampura Suit No : 107/16 Payal Vs. Corporation Bank Page 9 of 22. Branch was examined as D2W2. D2W2 produced the original letters dated 13.7.2007 written to the Manager, Corporation Bank, Pitampura Branch by the plaintiff. The copies of the said letter as Ex. D2W2/1 (OSR) (Colly. 2 pages).
15. Sh. A.S. Raghunath, Chief Manager, Corporation Bank, Pitampura Branch was examined as CW1. CW1 has produced the original agreement for opening and operating the locker as Ex. CW1/A (OSR) and the original manual of instructions of CORPVALUTS as Ex. CW1/B.
16. All the defence witnesses were cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and the defence evidence was closed vide order dated 24.8.2016. The matter was then listed for final arguments.
17. I have heard the final arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. Written arguments were also filed on behalf of the plaintiff. The defendants have not addressed arguments despite been given opportunities. I have considered the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and have carefully gone through the case file. My issuewise findings are as follows :
18. ISSUE NO. 1 : Whether the locker No. 216 in Corporation Bank is in exclusive name of the plaintiff? OPP.
19. The onus to prove this issue has been placed upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has contended that during her matrimonial alliance with the defendant No. 2, she through her husband / defendant No. 2, had got a Suit No : 107/16 Payal Vs. Corporation Bank Page 10 of 22. locker bearing No. 216 opened on 13.10.2002 in the defendant No. 1 bank at Pitampura Branch. The plaintiff has claimed that the locker No. 216 is in her exclusive name.
20. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has filed written submissions. Ld. Counsel has argued that from the documents itself, it is clear that there has been manipulation in the Locker Opening Form and the plaintiff alone was holding the said locker. Ld. Counsel has also argued that even if the locker is assumed to be in the joint name, it is proved that the defendant No. 2 has no claim in the locker and its contents and therefore, under Order 7 Rule 7 CPC, the relief may be moulded to do justice and to avoid multiple litigation.
21. I have considered the submissions and have perused the material on record.
22. The plaintiff has claimed that the locker no. 216 was in her exclusive name. The plaintiff has examined herself as PW1 to prove her claim. In the affidavit, the plaintiff has stated that on 13.10.2002, the locker was opened in her name and after marriage, she was informed by the defendant no.2 Amar Gupta that locker is in the joint name. At that time, their relations were cordial and after matrimonial dispute, she wrote letter dated 29.08.2006 to the defendant no.1 not to allow anyone including defendant no.2 to operate the locker.
23. In the cross examination, the plaintiff had stated that the locker was opened at the time when she was engaged. She was taken to the defendant Suit No : 107/16 Payal Vs. Corporation Bank Page 11 of 22. No. 1 bank by the parents of defendant No. 2 who got the locker opened. She was informed by the defendant No. 2 that the locker in question was in the joint name of plaintiff and defendant No. 2 after about a year of the marriage.
24. The plaintiff has placed on record various letter addressed to the bank in respect of locker in question. The letters dated 29.08.2006, 14.07.2007 and 25.08.2007 are Ex. PW1/2 to Ex. PW1/4.
25. In the letter dated 29.8.2006, Ex. PW1/2, the plaintiff has requested the bank not to allow the operation of the locker unless plaintiff and defendant No. 2 both are present. In the letter dated 29.8.2006, Ex. PW1/2, the subject was written as "Stoppage of operation of locker (No.
216) in the name of Payal Gupta and Amar Gupta". In the letter, the plaintiff has stated, "The locker is in my name and my husband name. Due to marital discord, we are living separately. I request you not to allow the operation of the locker unless we both are present". The contents of the letter and the words used by the plaintiff shows that the locker was in the joint name of the plaintiff and her husband Amar Gupta. The plaintiff has also admitted that all the letters which she had written to the defendant No. 1 bank described the locker as joint.
26. Thereafter, in the letter dated 14.7.2007, Ex. PW1/3, the plaintiff has stated that since the plaintiff and defendant no.2 are taking divorce, so defendant no.2 Amar Gupta be allowed to operate this locker independently when he would show the divorce certificate. After Suit No : 107/16 Payal Vs. Corporation Bank Page 12 of 22. 14.7.2007, the plaintiff again wrote one letter dated 25.8.2007 to the bank which is Ex. PW1/4 wherein she has stated that the marriage has been dissolved and she was forced and compelled to withdraw the letter dated 29.8.2006. She has stated that the locker is not a part of compromise of divorce and she had full right over the locker and its contents.
27. The defendant no. 2 has relied upon the two letters dated 13.07.2007, Ex. D2W2/1 (colly) received from plaintiff Payal by the defendant no. 1 bank wherein she has stated that since she and Amar Gupta are taking divorce, hence, the locker may be allowed to be operated by Amar Gupta only when he produces the divorce certificate from the Court. She has also requested the bank to delete her name from the locker as and when Amar Gupta submits the copy of divorce certificate.
28. Perusal of all the aforesaid letters show that at one time, the plaintiff has asked the bank to allow operation of locker by defendant no.2 as and when he furnishes divorce certificate and at second time, she has stated that locker was not part of compromise and defendant no.2 be not permitted to operate the locker.
29. In the letter dated 25.08.2007 Ex. PW1/4, the plaintiff has alleged that she was forced to withdraw her first letter dated 29.08.2006 and was compelled to write letter dated 14.07.2007. The plaintiff has also been crossexamined on the allegations levelled in the letter dated 25.08.2007 Ex. PW1/4.
30. In the crossexamination, the plaintiff has stated that she was Suit No : 107/16 Payal Vs. Corporation Bank Page 13 of 22. granted divorce by mutual consent on 25.8.2007. There was no pressure or coercion of any nature whatsoever from the defendant No. 1 when they applied for and were granted divorce by mutual consent. She has admitted that she and defendant No. 2 had given statement to the Hon'ble Matrimonial Court on 25.8.2007 and there was no dispute whatsoever between them.
31. The plaintiff has further stated that she had never informed the Matrimonial Court which granted the decree of divorce that the defendant No. 2 was putting precondition of his being allowed to operate the locker singly for obtaining divorce by mutual consent. She has admitted that the dispute regarding jointness of locker and the right to operate it arose prior to filing the petition for divorce. She has further admitted that she did not file any application to the Matrimonial Court regarding defendant No. 2 allegedly compelling her to write letter dated 14.7.2007 to the defendant No. 1.
32. It is clear from the testimony of the plaintiff that she was never coerced or threatened by anyone for filing the petition for divorce. It is admitted case of plaintiff that the dispute in respect of the locker had started prior to filing of petition for divorce. The plaintiff had admittedly not raised the issue of operation of locker before the Ld. Matrimonial Court. She has also never apprised the Matrimonial Court that she was forced to write any letter to the bank in respect of the locker. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the contention of the plaintiff that she was Suit No : 107/16 Payal Vs. Corporation Bank Page 14 of 22. forced to write letter dated 14.7.2007 to the bank thereby allowing Amar Gupta singly to operate the locker is without any substance.
33. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the name of Amar Gupta has been added later on in the application for Locker Opening Form and his name was not there when the plaintiff had opened the locker. It is alleged that fraud has been played upon the plaintiff in connivance between the defendant Nos. 1 and 2.
34. I have considered the contentions of Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and have perused the record.
35. The form for opening of the locker i.e. Agreement for Hiring Out the Locker is Ex. CW1/A. Perusal of the agreement shows that it is signed by plaintiff, Payal and defendant No. 2, Amar Gupta. Further in the stamp paper annexed with Agreement, it is stated, "This stamp paper is an integral part of agreement for hiring out locker executed by Payal and Amar Gupta on 13.10.2002". The stamp paper shows that name of plaintiff and Amar Gupta are clearly written at proper distance. It does not show that the name of Amar Gupta has been added later on by any manipulation in the document. The Locker Opening Form, Ex. CW1/A clearly shows that the locker was opened jointly in the name of plaintiff and defendant No. 2.
36. The plaintiff has failed to bring any material to show that the Form for opening of Locker was manipulated by the defendant no.1 in connivance with defendant no.2.
Suit No : 107/16 Payal Vs. Corporation Bank Page 15 of 22.
37. The defendant no.2 has also examined himself as D2W1 to prove that the locker was opened in the joint name and the plaintiff had settled all her claims towards Istridhan, dowry articles, jewellery, permanent alimony and maintenance etc. before the Matrimonial Court and thereafter the marriage was dissolved by mutual consent.
38. During cross examination, suggestion has been given to the defendant no. 2 Amar Gupta by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, "It is correct that locker is still in the joint name". Suggestion given to the defendant No. 2 by the plaintiff is an admission of the plaintiff that the locker was in the joint name and it is still in the joint name.
39. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that in the written statement, the defendant no. 1 bank has admitted that as per the agreement, the locker was alloted only to the plaintiff though, it was signed by the defendant no. 2 also.
40. I have considered the contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and have perused the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant no. 1 bank.
41. The contentions raised by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff are contrary to the record. In the written statement, para no. 2 of preliminary objections, the defendant no.1 has stated that the plaintiff and defendant no. 2, who were husband and wife, opened the locker in their joint names with instructions that the locker could be operated by either / survivor. In para no. 7 of reply on merits, the defendant no.1 has stated that the request Suit No : 107/16 Payal Vs. Corporation Bank Page 16 of 22. for safe deposit vault and the agreement for hiring locker has been jointly signed by the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 and the fixed deposit receipt of Rs. 10,000/ has also been made out in the joint names of the plaintiff and defendant no. 2. The records of the bank show the locker to be in the joint names of the plaintiff and defendant no. 2. No where in the written statement, the defendant no.1 has stated that the locker was opened in the name of the plaintiff only. It is clear from the written statement of defendant no.1 that the locker was opened in the joint name of plaintiff and defendant no.2.
42. In view of the discussion hereinabove, this Court holds that the plaintiff has failed to prove, on the balance of probability, that the locker no. 216 in the Corporation Bank is in the exclusive name of the plaintiff. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
43. ISSUE NO. 2 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of injunction as prayed? OPP.
44. The onus to prove this issue was placed upon the plaintiff. Ld Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that since the locker agreement is only in the favour of the plaintiff, the defendant no. 2 cannot be conferred any right for its operation. Ld. Counsel has also argued that the signatures of defendant no. 2 on the bottom of the agreement will not make him a beneficiary in the operation of the locker.
Suit No : 107/16 Payal Vs. Corporation Bank Page 17 of 22.
45. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has further contended that the defendant no.2 has no objection if the plaintiff operates the locker singly and therefore the relief may be granted to the plaintiff. There are no goods of the defendant no. 2 lying in the locker and no claim has been made by the defendant no. 2 or his parents in respect of goods lying in the locker till date, which proves the plaintiff's ownership over the goods lying in the locker. Therefore, the plaintiff may be granted the relief as claimed in the suit.
46. I have considered the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and perused the material on record.
47. The plaintiff has prayed that defendant no. 1 bank be directed to allow the plaintiff to operate her locker no. 216.
48. Perusal of the testimony of D2W1 shows that he has raised specific objections regarding operation of the locker by plaintiff. The defendant no.2 has stated that he has objection if the plaintiff wishes to operate the locker. He has further stated, "It is correct that the locker was got opened at the advise of my father (since deceased). It is correct that the key was with me". Defendant No. 2 has further stated that her Mom and Dad's jewellery are lying in the locker. He has also stated that as long as he is aware, the plaintiff has taken everything kept in the locker.
49. Admittedly, nothing has come on record from which it can be inferred that defendant no. 2 or his parents had filed any suit regarding the locker or its contents. However, mere fact that the defendant no.2 or his Suit No : 107/16 Payal Vs. Corporation Bank Page 18 of 22. parents have not filed any counterclaim or any suit in respect of the contents of the locker or operation thereof, does not mean that the defendant no. 2 has relinquished his right for operation of the locker or over the contents lying in the locker.
50. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has also argued that the statement of the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 and the judgment passed by the Matrimonial Court does not mention about the locker to be part of mutual divorce settlement and therefore, the plaintiff be given the right to operate the locker.
51. I have considered the submissions and have perused the judgment dated 25.08.2007 passed by the Ld. ADJ on the petition for divorce by mutual consent. It is a matter of record that there is no mention of the locker either in the statement made by the parties before the Matrimonial Court or the order passed by the Ld. Matrimonial Court. However, perusal of the statement and judgment show that the plaintiff had settled all her claims before decree of divorce was granted. Para 6 of the Judgment dated 25.08.2007 reads as under :
"The record also reveals that the petitioners have settled all their claims and disputes with regard to dowry, istridhan, maintenance and permanent alimony etc. in full and final settlement of all their claims. It has been agreed between them that the custody of the child namely Shriya shall remain with the petitioner no. 1 / father and the petitioner no. 2 / mother shall not claim her custody in future nor shall have any visitation rights to meet the child. Now no claim of any nature whatsoever has been left against each other. Both the petitioners have undertaken to Suit No : 107/16 Payal Vs. Corporation Bank Page 19 of 22. abide by the terms and conditions contained in the petition Ex. P1".
52. The joint statement of the parties recorded in the petition for mutual divorce is also on the record. The statement dated 30.07.2007 is not disputed by the plaintiff and defendant no. 2. In the statement, it is stated that the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 have amicably settled all their matrimonial claims and disputes with regard to dowry, istridhan, maintenance - present, past and future and permanent alimony etc. in full and final settlement of all their claims. It is specifically stated by both the parties before the Matrimonial Court that no claim of any nature whatsoever has been left against each other.
53. The plaintiff has also been cross examined in respect of the settlement arrived before the Matrimonial Court.
54. In the cross examination, the plaintiff has stated, "It is correct that the petition for divorce before the Matrimonial Court was signed by me. It is correct that I knew the consequences. It is correct that I had signed the petition for divorce through mutual consent without any undue influence, coercion, pressure and threat". The plaintiff has further admitted that Ex. PW1/3 was in force at the time of recording of statement of second motion for grant of divorce before the Matrimonial Court.
55. In the cross examination, the plaintiff has further admitted, "It is correct that I have not objected that Ex. PW1/3 was made to be filed before the bank by any force or pressure at the time of giving a statement Suit No : 107/16 Payal Vs. Corporation Bank Page 20 of 22. in second motion. It is correct that after granting divorce, the locker in question was to be operated only by defendant No. 2. It is correct that I have settled the claim regarding istridhan with defendant No. 2".
56. Perusal of the testimony of the plaintiff, statement dated 30.07.2007 and the judgment dated 25.08.2007 clearly show that the plaintiff had settled all her claims in respect of Istridhan, dowry articles and alimony before the Matrimonial Court and she has been left with no claim against the defendant no. 2. The plaintiff has also specifically admitted during crossexamination that after granting of divorce, the locker in question was to be operated only by the defendant no. 2.
57. In the plaint, the plaintiff has stated that the jewelery lying the locker is her Istridhan. Before the Matrimonial Court, the plaintiff has admittedly settled all her claims in respect of Istridhan, dowry, alimony etc. It is settled that injunction is an equitable relief. It is also settled that one who seeks equity must do equity and a plaintiff seeking an injunction must come with clean hands. The plaintiff in the plaint has not disclosed that she has settled all her claims in respect of Istridhan and dowry etc. before the Matrimonial Court. Further, the plaintiff has failed to prove that the locker no. 216 is in her exclusive name. Therefore, this Court holds that the plaintiff is not entitled to relief of mandatory injunction. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
Suit No : 107/16 Payal Vs. Corporation Bank Page 21 of 22.
58. Relief.
59. In view of findings of this Court on aforesaid issues, this Court holds that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Pronounced in the open court (NEHA)
on 05th December, 2016 Civil Judge09, Central
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Suit No : 107/16 Payal Vs. Corporation Bank Page 22 of 22.