AVANI KAPUR Vs. SMRITHI TALWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order impugned is the order dated 28.05.2011. This order had endorsed the prima facie finding returned by the Civil Judge dated 13.04.2011 whereby the application of the plaintiff (Dr. Smrithi Talwar) under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') had been allowed and the defendants (Avani Kapur and Suvira Kapur) had been restrained from causing any obstruction or interference in the ingress and egress of the plaintiff in the suit property i.e. property bearing No. B-7, Pushpanjali Forms, Bijwasan, New Delhi.

(2.) The plaintiff is the second wife of Rajiv Kapur. The disputed property was equally owned by late Rajiv Kapur and his mother Suvira Kapur (defendant No. 2). Rajiv Kapur had expired on 14.07.2005; during his lifetime he had entered into a second marriage with the plaintiff after a valid and legal divorce. Defendant No. 1 (Avani Kapur) is his daughter from the first marriage. Contention of the plaintiff is that in terms of the amended provisions of Section 50 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1951 (DLRA) the suit property being agricultural land she alone is entitled to the share of her deceased husband (50% of the suit property). This contention is opposed by defendant No. 1; her plea being that in terms of Section 6 (5) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Act of 2005 she is also entitled to a share in her father's 50% share. There is no dispute that the remaining 50% of the suit property is fully owned by defendant No. 2 i.e. Suvira Kapur.

(3.) It is in this background that the respective contentions of the parties had been noted. Civil Judge after examining the respective documents of the respective parties had returned a finding that as on date i.e. on 13.04.2011 neither the plaintiff nor the defendants are residing in the suit property; the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 are in constructive possession of the suit property being co-owners. On this premise i.e. holding the plaintiff to be a co-owner, the application of the plaintiff was allowed and both the defendants were restrained from causing any obstruction or interference in the ingress and egress of the plaintiff in the suit property.