Dghtr in law forcefully enter FIL’s house & tries DV residnce. Looses completely Court throws her out

Tales how how ABLAS TRY TO TAKE OVER AGED FATHER IN LAW’S PROPERTY !!

Since land and real estate like house is becoming the biggest property in the hands of most Indians, daughter in law are now attacking such property. Many cases have come to light where irate Daughter in law try to take over assets of the father in law by forcefully occupying the same

Here is a case where a daughter in law who had left the FIL’s place forefully enter the house and claims it is a “shared household” !! The son has left the father in law’s place and gone to a rented accommodation !! still wife tries “kabza” using the DV act !!“…Ld. Counsel for defendant no.2 argued that suit property is the shared household of defendant no.2 and thus she has the right of residence in the same. …”

However the father in law contends that (a) he has disowned the son vide paper advert and (b) the daughter in law is NOT residing at that place since MANY years and (c) that the son himself has moved out to a rented premises
“…It is important to note here that the said reply was filed in January 2008 whereas admittedly a compromise has been entered between defendant no.1 and 2 before the Court of Sh. A. K. Kuhar, the then Ld. ASJ/ACMM in view of which both the defendants left the suit premises and started residing in a rented accommodation. This fact is admitted by DW­2 in her cross examination. The defendant no.1 is not residing in the suit premises as on date and as per his version the suit property is locked and under the possession of defendant no.2 has not been disproved….”

Appreciating the evidence the Honourable District court decrees “…It has been held that as per the provision of Domestic Violence Act the wife is only entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household, and a ‘shared household’ would only mean the house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member.

The property in question in the present case neither belongs to defendant no.1 nor it is a joint family property of which defendant no.1 is a member. It has been proved on record that defendant no.1 is residing separately in a rented accommodation and nor in the suit premises which is the exclusive property of plaintiff herein. The allegations of plaintiff that defendants entered the suit premises in year 2012 has not been rebutted by any cogent evidence led by defendants. Hence, the suit property cannot be called a shared household. In view of the observations given above, it can be safely concluded that defendant no.2 has no right to seek right to residence in the suit premises. Accordingly, this issue stands decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants…..”

Let us hope that there are NO further appeals and the property goes back to the real owner, i.e. the husband’s father !!

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
*******************************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
*******************************************************************************


The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

Delhi District Court

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE­02 (SOUTH) SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI

In the matter of : CS No. 369/13

Panna Lal
S/o Late Sh. Ram Chandi Ram
R/o House no. 785, Gali No. 3,
Sultanpur, Mehrauli,
New Delhi …. Plaintiff

Versus

1. Chander Verdhan
S/o Sh. Panna Lal

2. Pushpa
W/o Sh. Chander Verdhan

Both Resident of H. No. 179
Gali No. 3, Sultanpur,
Mehrauli, New Delhi­110017 …. Defendants

Date of Institution : 04.08.2012
Date of Reserving Judgment : 09.10.2015
Date of Decision : 12.10.2015
Final Decision : Decreed

J U D G M E N T
(on suit for Possession and Permanent Injunction)

1. This suit was filed by the plaintiff Possession and Permanent Injunction against the defendants.

2. Briefly stated, case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff filed a suit for possession against the defendants averring therein that plaintiff had purchased property bearing no. 179, Gali no. 1, Sultanpur, Mehrauli, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”) from one Ram Parshad by way of registered sale deed dated 27.12.1979. That defendants no.1 & 2 are the son and daughter­in­law of the plaintiff respectively. That after the marriage of defendant no. 1, defendant no. 2 started torturing the plaintiff and also filed false case against the plaintiff. That in view of the strained relations between the parties, the plaintiff inducted the defendants as oral licensees on 10.12.2007 and allowed them to live in two rooms of the suit property without any rent or money consideration. That on account of bad behavior of defendant no. 2, plaintiff disowned defendant no. 1 by way of newspaper publication on 13.12.2007. That defendant no.1 and 2 entered into a compromise dated 14.11.2008 before the Court of Sh.A. K. Kuhar, Ld. ASJ/ACMM, New Delhi whereby the defendants left the suit property and started residing at a rented accommodation i.e. G­3, Jawahar Colony, Mandi Pahari, New Delhi. That in the month of March/April 2012, the defendants forcefully entered into the suit premises against the consent of the plaintiff. That the plaintiff has terminated the license of the defendants by way of legal notice dated 04.05.2012. That the defendants have failed to vacate the suit property. Hence, the present suit is filed by the plaintiff.

3. Upon service of summons of the present suit, defendants appeared and filed their written statement (WS) denying the allegations as contained in the plaint. Defendants in their WS stated that this Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit. That plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts from the court. Hence, it is prayed that matter be dismissed.

4. Plaintiff filed replication to the WS of the defendant no.1 and 2 respectively denying the preliminary objections and other averments as contained in the WS. Averments as contained in the plaint were once again reiterated by way of the replication.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 13.03.2014:­

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession
regarding suit property bearing no. 179, Gali no. 3, Sultanpur,
Mehrauli, New Delhi as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for restraining the
defendants from selling, disposing off, mortgaging, renting or
creating any third party interest in the suit property? OPP

3. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present
suit? OPD2

4. Whether the present suit has not been properly valued for the
purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD2

5. Whether the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff in
collusion with defendant no. 1? OPD2

6. Relief, if any.

6. In order to prove his case, plaintiff examined himself as PW­1 by tendering his evidence by way of an affidavit Ex.PW­1/1. He also relied upon the documents which are Ex.PW­1/A (site plan), EX.PW­1/B (sale deed dated 26.12.1979­OSR), Ex.PW­1/C (copy of declaration dated 13.12.2007 in newspaper), Ex.PW­1/D Colly (copy of legal notice dated 10.12.2007 alongwith postal receipts­OSR), Ex.PW­1/E Colly (copy of legal notice dated 30.04.2012 alongwith postal receipts), Ex.PW­1/F (copy of FIR no. 211/08), Ex.PW­1/G (copy of order dated 10.10.2008) and Ex.PW­1/H (copy of FIR no. 558/08). Plaintiff also examined two more witnesses namely Sh. Suresh Kumar and Sh. Virendra Kumar as PW­2 and PW­3 and thereafter, plaintiff closed his evidence. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

On the other hand, defendant no.1 got examined himself as DW­1 by tendering his evidence by way of an affidavit Ex. DW 1/A. DW­1 relied upon the documents Mark X (copy of tenant verification report). Defendant no.2 also examined herself as DW­2 by tendering her evidence by way of an affidavit Ex.DW­2/1 and further relied upon documents Ex.DW­2/A and thereafter, defendants closed their evidence.

7. I have heard the contentions of both the sides and also gone through the record carefully. My issue­wise findings are as under:

ISSUE NO.3 Whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit?

8. Before proceedings further, I deem it appropriate to decide issue no.3 first. The onus to prove this issue was upon the

Defendant no. 2. Apart from the bare averments in the WS filed by the defendant no.2, there is no evidence led by the defendant to prove the same. In absence of any such evidence, the onus lying upon the defendant remained undischarged. Accordingly, this issue stands decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.2.

ISSUE NO.4 Whether the present suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction?

9. Before proceedings further, I deem it appropriate to decide issue no.4 first. The onus to prove this issue was upon the Defendant no. 2. Ld. Counsel for defendant no.2 argued that the suit property has not been valued properly as the defendant no.2 is in occupation of two rooms. Apart from the bare averments in the WS filed by the defendant no.2, there is no evidence led by the defendant to prove the same. In absence of any such evidence, the onus lying upon the defendant remained undischarged.

It is a settled proposition of law that the plaintiff has a right to value his suit as per his assessment but the same should not be valued arbitrarily. Defendant has not led any evidence to prove that the suit has been undervalued. Hence, this Court is of the view that plaintiff has valued the suit properly. Accordingly, this issue stands decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.2.

ISSUE NO.5 Whether the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff in collusion with defendant no. 1?

10. Before proceedings further, I deem it appropriate to decide issue no.5 first. The onus to prove this issue was upon the Defendant no. 2. Ld. Counsel for defendant no.2 argued that defendant no.1 has admitted all the allegations averred by the plaintiff which shows that defendant no.1 has colluded with the plaintiff to oust the defendant no.2 from the suit premises which otherwise she is entitled to. Ld. Counsel further argued that defendant no.1 is residing with the plaintiff and has stated wrongly on the record that he is residing at a rented accommodation. Hence, from the evidence led on record, it is proved that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff in collusion with defendant no.1.

On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff argued that there is no collusion between the plaintiff and defendant no.1 as the plaintiff has debarred and dis­owned both the defendants from his life and property and has no concern with either of them. It is further argued that the evidence led by the defendant no.2 by way of affidavit is beyond pleadings, hence, cannot be read in evidence.

11. It is admitted on record by DW­2 in her cross examination that the deposition in para no.2 to 13 of her affidavit are beyond pleadings as the said facts have not been mentioned in her WS. In such circumstances, the affidavit filed on record by the defendant no.2 cannot be read in evidence. It is further important to note here that admissions by the defendant no.1 in his WS to the allegations made by plaintiff in his plaint does not amount to collusion between them. There is nothing on record to suggest that plaintiff and defendant no.1 has colluded with each other for ousting the defendant no.2 from the suit property as no cogent evidence on record has been led by defendant no.2. On the contrary plaintiff has made categorical allegations against the defendant no.1 also. Hence, this issue stands decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.2.

ISSUE NO.1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession regarding suit property bearing no. 179, Gali no. 3, Sultanpur, Mehrauli, New Delhi as prayed for?

12. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that plaintiff has proved on record that he is the absolute owner of the suit property by filing on record the documents Ex.PW­1/B i.e. sale deed which has been proved by witness PW­3. It is further argued that defendants have forcibly entered into the suit premises in month of March/April 2012 thus having the status of illegal occupants. It is further argued that defendant no.2 is not residing at the suit premises but the same is under her possession as she has locked the property. It is further argued that a notice of eviction has also been served upon the defendants, therefore, plaintiff is entitled to recovery of possession. In support of his arguments plaintiff has relied upon a judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as S. R. Batra & Anr. Vs Taruna Batra decided on 15.12.2006. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

Ld. Counsel for defendant no.2 argued that suit property is the shared household of defendant no.2 and thus she has the right of residence in the same. It is further argued that as per the agreement between the parties, the suit property was given to the defendants by the plaintiff on 10.12.2007 and the same is admitted by plaintiff in his reply filed in the proceedings under Domestic Violence Act i.e. Ex.DW­2/A in January 2008. It is further argued that defendant no.2 has every right over the suit property and she is still living continuously at the suit property after her marriage. Hence, plaintiff is not entitled to any such relief.

13. Admittedly, plaintiff has filed a reply Ex.DW­2/A in the proceedings under Domestic Violence Act where he stated that defendant no.2 has a right to live in the suit premises. It is important to note here that the said reply was filed in January 2008 whereas admittedly a compromise has been entered between defendant no.1 and 2 before the Court of Sh. A. K. Kuhar, the then Ld. ASJ/ACMM in view of which both the defendants left the suit premises and started residing in a rented accommodation. This fact is admitted by DW­2 in her cross examination. The defendant no.1 is not residing in the suit premises as on date and as per his version the suit property is locked and under the possession of defendant no.2 has not been disproved.

It is further important to note here that the suit property is actually registered in the name of plaintiff as absolute owner of the same. PW­3, official from the office of Sub­Registrar has testified and proved the claim of the plaintiff on record.

14. The only question remains now is that whether defendant no.2 has right of residence in the suit premises or not. I would rely upon the judgment placed on record by the plaintiff in support of his case which clearly establishes the proposition as raised before this Court. It has been held that as per the provision of Domestic Violence Act the wife is only entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household, and a ‘shared household’ would only mean the house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member.

The property in question in the present case neither belongs to defendant no.1 nor it is a joint family property of which defendant no.1 is a member. It has been proved on record that defendant no.1 is residing separately in a rented accommodation and nor in the suit premises which is the exclusive property of plaintiff herein. The allegations of plaintiff that defendants entered the suit premises in year 2012 has not been rebutted by any cogent evidence led by defendants. Hence, the suit property cannot be called a shared household. In view of the observations given above, it can be safely concluded that defendant no.2 has no right to seek right to residence in the suit premises. Accordingly, this issue stands decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

ISSUE NO.2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for restraining the defendants from selling, disposing off, mortgaging, renting or creating any third party interest in the suit property?

15. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. Ld.Counsel for plaintiff argued that plaintiff is under apprehension that defendants may create third party interest in the suit premises which is solely owned by the plaintiff, hence, it is prayed that defendants be restrained from doing so. It has already been established in the previous issue that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit premises and thus have the right to recover the possession of the same from the defendants. The claim of the defendants over the suit property definitely creates apprehension in the mind of the plaintiff. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that plaintiff is entitled to relief of injunction as prayed herein. Accordingly, this issue also stands decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

Relief:

16. As a consequence to my findings on the above mentioned issues, suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed. Defendants are directed to hand over the vacant and physical possession of the suit property i.e. property bearing no.179, Gali No.3, Sultanpur, Mehrauli, New Delhi as shown in red color in the site plan to the plaintiff immediately. Defendants are further restrained from selling, disposing off, mortgaging, renting or creating any third party interest in the suit property. Costs of the suit is also awarded to the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly after payment of deficient Court fee on the relief granted within 15 days from today.

17. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in the open Court on 12.10.2015

(Vishal Pahuja)

CJ­02 (South)/Saket Courts

New Delhi/12.10.2015

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s