BEENA Vs. HARI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT is a second appeal under Section 100 read with Order 42 of CPC against the judgment/decree dated 09.02.2012 passed by the learned ADJ, Delhi in RCA No. 41/2011 whereby the judgment and decree dated 06.08.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 130/2009 has been upheld.

(2.) THE respondent herein is the father of appellant no. 2 and father -in -law of appellant no. 1 i.e. defendants before the learned trial court. Respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction against both the appellants/defendants stating therein that the respondent/plaintiff is the owner of the property bearing No. P -2/180, Sultan Puri, Delhi. There are various documents, the details of which are there in the plaint. He is an old person and is physically very weak and his half body is paralyzed and he is suffering from starvation. Both the appellants/defendants are not providing food/medicine to him. Accordingly, he had filed the aforesaid suit seeking permanent injunction by directing the appellants not to create any third party or sell the property and also restraining the appellant from ingress and egress permanently in the suit premises. It is also stated in the plaint that the respondent/plaintiff is residing at the first and second floor of the said house whereas appellants/defendants are residing on the ground floor. Initially, they were taking his care but with the passage of time they have stopped providing him food and medicines as a result of which respondent/plaintiff has become very weak. Respondent/plaintiff has alleged that he had also filed a complaint against the appellants/defendants in P.S. Sultan Puri but no action has been taken. The respondent/plaintiff had terminated their licence vide legal notice dated 23.01.2009 and had prayed for passing of a decree in the nature of mandatory injunction in his favour and against the appellants/defendants thereby directing and restraining the defendants, their agents, associates, relatives, representatives etc. not to create third party or sell the suit premises and also for restraining the defendants/appellants from the egress and ingress permanently in the suit premises.

(3.) AGGRIEVED with the same, one of the appellants i.e. appellant no. 2 Sh.Raj Kumar had challenged the same by filing an appeal i.e. RCA No. 3/2011 before the learned District Judge, Rohini District Court, Delhi. The said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 17.11.2011. Thereafter, another appeal was filed by both the appellants/defendants i.e. vide RCA No. 41/2011 before Ld. ADJ, Delhi. The same was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 09.02.2012. The judgments of both the courts below i.e. judgment of ld. Civil Judge and ld. ADJ are challenged before this court.