SNEH LATA MATHUR Vs. BRIJ RAJ BAHADUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for injunction directing the defendants to permit the plaintiff to occupy and use the portion referred to as House No.II in the site plan attached with the plaint in respect of Suit property No.14, Jamuna Road, Civil Lines Delhi.

(2.) The facts relevant for the disposal of this application, briefly stated, are that the plaintiff is a widow aged about 87 years. The defendant No.1 is her brother, defendants No.2 and 3 are her sisters. Defendant No.4 is the daughter of defendant No.1 and defendant No.5 is the husband of defendant No.4. According to the plaintiff the suit property was inherited by her father Sardar Bahadur in the course of a partition with his brothers and after the death of her father and mother the suit property has devolved upon the plaintiff and defendants 1,2 and 3 in equal shares. They, therefore, are co-owners of the suit property having 1/4 share each . The suit property is comprised of three built up structures. The largest built up portion located almost in the centre of the property, having about 8 rooms, is shown as House No.l in the site plan and is in possession and occupation of defendant No.1. Till the death of the their mother they were residing in the said House No.1 but thereafter because of the temperamental nature and misbehavior of defendant No.1, the plaintiff and defendant No.2 found it difficult to stay with defendant No.1 and as per a family arrangement the plaintiff and defendant No.2 rebuilt and renovated and thereafter shifted to House No.II. The defendant No.2 is also a widow aged about 70 years. It is pleaded that in the year 1976 Urban Land and Ceiling Act 1976 was promulgated and in terms there of prescribed statements were filed before the Competent Authority in which the plaintiff as well as defendant No.1, 2 and 3 were described as co-owners of the suit property having 1/4 share each.

(3.) The plaintiff alleged that defendant No.4, the daughter of defendant No.1 was married in the year 1996 to defendant No.5 but within a month of her marriage, she came back with her husband and started living with defendant No.1. The plaintiff was told that the defendant No.5 was building a house in Faridabad which was on the verge of completion and defendants 4 and 5 would shift as soon as their house is completed. However, after a few days of her return defendant No.4 started having verbal exchanges with her father, defendant No,1, and as such there was unpleasantness in the house. Since defendant No.4 were very close to the plaintiff and defendant No.2, who were her aunts, she requested them to permit her and her husband to reside in one room in House No.II for a couple of months till the completion of their house in Faridabad. Out of love and affection, this request was allowed and defendants No.4 and 5 started living in a part of House No.II. It later on, however, transpired defendants No.4 and 5 had come to live in the suit property permanently and intended to eject the plaintiff and defendant No.2 from their portion. The plaintiff repeatedly requested defendants No.4 and 5 to shift to their own house but they started increasing their occupation and restricted the space available to plaintiff and defendant No.2. Defendants 4 and 5 came to the level of threatening the plaintiff and defendant No.2.