SANGEETA CHAUHAN Vs. RUMALI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (1908) impugns the judgment and decree dated 26th August, 2004 of the Court of Shri H.S. Sharma, Additional District Judge (ADJ), Delhi in Suit No.662/2001; a) of recovery of possession of the first floor (with mezzanine floor) of property no.C -217, Gali No.1, Majlis Park, Delhi; b) of recovery of mesne profits/damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.5,000/ - per month w.e.f. 16th October, 2004 till the date of delivery of possession; and, c) of injunction restraining the appellant/defendant from creating any third party interest in the said portion of the property and from handing over possession thereof to any other person.

(2.) The appeal was filed as an indigent person and finding that the appellant has no immovable property and no source of livelihood except Rs.4,000/ - per month which the appellant is getting as maintenance from her husband, was entertained and notice thereof issued and the operation of the impugned judgment and decree stayed. Considering that the appellant is the daughter -in - law of the respondent, attempts at settlement were made and the parties referred to mediation, but without any success. Ultimately on 13 th May, 2008 the appeal was admitted for hearing and the interim order earlier granted made absolute. CM No.8488/2010 was filed by the appellant to bring on record subsequent events inter alia of demise of her husband on 22nd January, 2010 and the appellant/defendant during the illness of her husband preceding his death having set aside disputes and differences and having started living with him. In the said application, an understanding of the husband of the appellant/defendant with his parents, to buy the whole property was also pleaded.

(3.) Vide judgment/order dated 26th July, 2011 the appeal was dismissed with the clarification that the said dismissal will not come in the way of the daughters of the appellant asserting the right which according to the appellant they had in the property. Review Petition No.494/2011 preferred was on 9th September, 2011 dismissed as not pressed.