SHUMITA DIDI SANDHU Vs. SANJAY SINGH SANDHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the wife of defendant no.1 and daughter-in-law of defendants no.2 and 3. The property bearing number 18A, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi was leased out in the name of defendant no.3. The relations between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 are far from cordial. It is alleged that initially the plaintiff and defendant no.1 were living on the ground floor of the aforesaid property along with defendants no.2 and 3 but, due to violence from defendant no.1, she moved out to Defence Colony, New Delhi in May, 1996. Defendant no.1 joined her at Defence Colony. Thereafter, defendants no.2 and 3 pressurized them to return to the suit property and eventually the plaintiff moved to the first floor of the aforesaid property. It is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff had learnt that the defendants were trying to sell the aforesaid house so as to throw the plaintiff out of the matrimonial house. The plaintiff sought an injunction restraining the defendants from committing acts of violence and intimidation against her and dispossessing her forcibly from her matrimonial home without due process of law.

(2.) Vide order dated 2.7.2007 passed in IA No.291/2005 and 8444/2005, this Court held that the plaintiff has no right to stay in the aforesaid property belonging to her parents-in-law. The Court, however, recorded the statement of defendant no.2 who stated that he or his wife (defendant no.3) had no intention to throw the plaintiff out of the aforesaid premises in question without due process of law. It was directed that the defendants shall remain bound by the said statement, but this would not prevent the defendants from taking recourse to law in dispossessing the plaintiff. The plaintiff preferred an appeal against the order dated 2.7.2007. The said appeal came to be dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.10.2010. A perusal of the order passed by the Division Bench would show that the learned counsel for the plaintiff contended, before the Division Bench, that the plaintiff had nowhere admitted that the defendants no.2 and 3 to be the sole and exclusive owners of the suit property. He also submitted that there was a dispute as to whether the defendants no.2 and 3 or defendant no.3 alone was the exclusive owner of the said property and that it was a joint family property also needed to be looked into. The following observations made by the Division Bench while dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiff are pertinent in this regard:

(3.) The plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC, alleging therein that by executing two sale deeds in respect of part of the suit property, the defendants had disobeyed the interim order of this Court dated 18.01.2005. Rejecting the application, this Court vide order dated 24.08.2012, inter alia, held as under: