SANDEEP CHANDRA Vs. LT COL R R CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Regular First Appeal from the Original Side under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been filed by Mr. Sandeep Chandra, the Appellant, against the Judgment and Decree dated 9th October, 2009, passed by the learned Single Judge in CS (OS) 876 of 2008, whereby the learned Single Judge passed the decree for possession, permanent and mandatory injunction in favour of Respondent No. 1 father of the Appellant and also dismissed the counter-claim filed by the Appellant. The submissions made by both the parties in the suit for the purpose of determining the present appeal are that the Respondent no.1 Col. R.R. Chandra (Retd.) who was the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court filed a suit for possession and permanent injunction against his son (Appellant herein) who occupies a portion of the suit property, being S-207, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi-110048. The Respondent No.1 is a retired army officer and is the sole and absolute owner of the entire suit property which was purchased from his own funds and income. His wife is a medical practitioner. Both, Respondent No. 1 and his wife are senior citizens and are maintaining themselves with pension and rental income received by letting out the second floor of the suit property. The Appellant is their elder son.

(2.) As per Respondent No.1, the Appellant was given very good education. The younger son Dr. Anuj Chandra, Respondent No.2 herein is a medical practitioner settled in the United States of America. According to Respondent No. 1, the Appellant got married in 1985 to a Ms. Shoma. A son, namely, Vijay Vikram was born to the couple in the year 1988. The marriage was however, dissolved in 1995. The son is in custody of his mother. It is also stated in the plaint that the Appellant acquired a residential property i.e. 27, Siddharth Enclave which was mainly funded by the Respondent No.1 which was let out by the Appellant. However, the same was sold by the Appellant in the year 2004 and he retained the entire sale proceeds.

(3.) There are various other allegations made by the Respondent No.1 against the Appellant, inter alia, that the Appellant does not show any regard or respect to his elderly father and behaves arrogantly. He goes as far as to not allowing the Respondent's guests to visit him and also threatens to implicate him, his wife as well as his younger brother in criminal cases. The Appellant occupies one room, mentioned in the plan annexed to the plaint. Under these circumstances, the Respondent had no option but to seek a decree for possession and permanent injunction restraining the Appellant from disturbing his possession.