SHEELA RANI Vs. JAGDISH CHANDER SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R.S.A. 115 of 2002 is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.7.2002 of the learned Additional District Judge in R.C.A. No. 11/1997, arising out of judgment and decree dated 26.2.1997 of the learned Civil Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 124/1986. The learned Appellate Court vide judgment dated 23.7.2002 dismissed the appeal while concurring with findings of the trial court.

(2.) The defendants were served. However, defendants No.2 to 4 did not appear in court and were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 10.10.1979. The defendant No.1 has contested the suit and has filed her written statement. In the written statement, it is alleged that the plot was purchased from the Hindu Undivided Family of which plaintiff and defendant No.1 along with the father of the plaintiff, and a brother of plaintiff are members. The defendants also have a share in the super structure of the disputed property. It is also stated that House No. H-46, Garhwali Mohalla, Laxmi Nagar is also a Joint Hindu Undivided Family property. The defendant No.1 does not know about the renting out of the suit property by the plaintiff, however, the defendant entered the suit property on 26.2.1979, the property was lying vacant. It is admitted that the relations between the parties were strained. It is stated that the relations between the parties were patched up when the defendants entered the suit property, collusion between the defendants and police is denied. The defendants have legal right to stay in the property. The defendant No. 1 is the legally wedded wife and other defendants are sons and daughter and daughter-in-law of the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 under the provisions of law has a right of maintenance, residence clothes and all necessities from the husband of the defendant and the defendants have a right to stay in the suit property. The defendants were accommodated by the plaintiff himself in the suit property and they are living as such near relatives of the plaintiff being further rights to live therein. It has also been denied that the licence stood cancelled and revoked since the plaintiff demanded from the defendant to vacate the property in dispute. It is also denied that the defendants are liable to surrender the possession of the suit property and to pay the damages for use and occupation. He did not contribute to the marriage of their daughters. The defendants are not trespassers in the suit property. It is stated that the suit is false and is liable to be dismissed. Some additional pleas have also been taken pleading that the plaint is liable to be rejected as particulars of the immovable property have not been filed as required by the law. Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 who are living in the suit property did not appear in the court under the false assurance of the plaintiff. It is also alleged that the plaintiff deserved the defendant and her children, he is living with another lady. The plaintiff also accused the defendant No.1 of having affairs with his own young brother. The defendant No.1 also filed an application for maintenance against the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a petition for dissolution of of the marriage. It is further alleged that the plaintiff occasionally gets fits of sanity and insanity, the conscience of the plaintiff must have pricked him and he approached the defendant No.1 with other persons and it was agreed that the parties shall forget the past and plaintiff will put the defendant No.1 and his family in possession of the suit property with right to live therein. The defendant accepted the arrangement and family was actually inducted in the suit property by the plaintiff on 26.2.1979 in the presence of various persons of the locality. It is also alleged that it appears that plaintiff again got a fit of insanity or sanity and wanted to back out from the arrangement and filed a false report against defendant. The plaintiff has committed bigamy as he is living with one Veena Rani. Other allegations contained in the plaint have also been denied and it is prayed that the suit be dismissed with costs.

(3.) Being aggrieved thereof, Smt. Sheela Rani and Smt. Prem Lata filed an appeal being R.C.A. No. 11/1993.