Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. The plaintiffs to the suit thus submitted that the defendant i.e. appellant herein had no legal right to retain the possession of the suit property and was under an obligation to surrender the portion in her possession in view of the termination of a licence which was terminated on the demise of the spouse of the appellant on 13.12.2014 as also when a notice of demand dated 18.04.2015 was sent by the respondents herein to the defendant / appellant terminating the said licence.

17. The prayer thus made by the plaintiffs in their suit bearing initial no.171/15 and then CS No.8635/16 thus sought the grant of a decree of permanent and mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant i.e. appellant herein thereby restraining their agents, employees, associates, workers, family members and the persons working on its behalf from transferring, alienating and / or disposing off the property by sale or otherwise or creating any third party interest over the property bearing No. 51/1A, Street No.13, East Azad Nagar Delhi -110051, consisting of one room, Kitchen and bathroom on the second floor and one room, open space along with bathroom on third floor as more specifically shown and delineated it red colour in the site plan annexed with the plaint and/or from, parting with the possession in respect of the portion in their possession to any other person except the plaintiffs in any manner whatsoever. The Plaintiff of the said suit had also sought for the grant of a decree of mandatory and permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs i.e. respondents herein against the defendant i.e. the appellant herein seeking a direction to the defendant i.e. appellant herein to immediately vacate and surrender the actual, vacant peaceful physical possession of the premises in question comprising of one room, kitchen and washroom on the second floor and one room as shown in the site plan apart from seeking damages to the tune of Rs.15000/- per month from the date of receipt of the legal notice.

2. During the hearing of arguments on 16.01.2018, the Ld. Advocate for the plaintiffs had submitted that this Court should grant the judgment/decree qua the reliefs of mandatory injunction and permanent prohibitory injunction, sought by way of this suit, by exercising power under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, 1908, because (a) the plea of the defendant that the plaintiffs cannot file a suit for mandatory injunction against the defendant and. instead, the plaintiffs should file a suit for possession against the defendant, is untenable in law, on account of the law laid ,down in Sant Lal Jain Vs Avtar Singh, (1985) 2 SCC 332 and Joseph Severance & Ors. V Benny Matthew & Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 667 and because (b) the plea of the defendant that she has inherited ownership rights in property no.51/1A, Street No.13, East Azad Nagar, Delhi (henceforth 'suit property') upon the death of her husband, Late Sh. Vipin Kumar Sharma, is untenable in law, on account of the existence of the unchallenged registered Sale deed dated 28.09.2001, in the name of the' plaintiff no.l. Per contra, the Ld, Advocate for the defendant had submitted that this Court should not grant the judgment/decree qua the reliefs of mandatory injunction and permanent prohibitory injunction sought by the plaintiffs, by exercising power under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC 1908, because (a) in the written statement, the defendant has nowhere admitted the case of the plaintiffs, because (b) the defendant has inherited ownership rights in the suit property upon the death of her husband, Late. Sh. Vipin Kumar Sharma, as the suit property was purchased from the funds of Late Sh.

Vipin Kumar Sharma and because (c) after framing of issues on 12.10.2015, it would be inapposite for this Court to exercise the power under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, 1908, in respect of the reliefs of mandatory injunction and permanent prohibitory injunction, sought by way of this suit.

3. After considering the submissions made by the ld. Advocates for the parties on 16.01.2018 and perusing the record of the Court file, I find that de hors the fact that the issues of this suit were framed by a Ld. Predecessor Judge on 12.10.2015, this Court can pass the judgment / decree qua the reliefs of mandatory injunction, and permanent prohibitory injunction, sought by way of this suit, by exercising power under Order XII Rule 6 read with Order XV Rule 1 of CPC, 1908 because (a) all the defences pleaded by the defendant in the written statement and all the submissions made by the Ld. Advocate for the defendant qua the said reliefs, are untenable in law and do not require adjudication by way of trial and because

49. It was submitted on behalf of the respondents that the appellant contended in the present appeal and in written statement that the suit for Mandatory injunction and permanent Injunction is not maintainable as the plaintiff no.1 was claiming possession in a suit of Mandatory Injunction and the Ld trial court had no jurisdiction as the suit was improperly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction and it was submitted that this plea of the appellant is untenable in view of the judgment of Sant Lal Vs Avtar Singh (1985) 2 SCC 332 and Joseph Severance & Ors. Versus Benny Mathew & Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 667. The respondents through their written submissions further contended that the Ld. Trial Court had also relied on the said judgments.