OMVATI Vs. SEHDEV SINGH TOMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . R.M. Bagai, learned Counsel has entered appearance on behalf of the defendants. Right at the outset, he submits that this Court is required to exercise its jurisdiction under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC to examine the plaint inasmuch as no cause of action is made out on the suit against any of the defendants. I have consequently heard learned Counsel for the parties and also examined the plaint in support of this submission. It is noteworthy that the plaint is premised on the admission that the property No. A-2/163, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi was owned in its entity by the defendant No. 2 who is the father-in-law of the plaintiff gifting the ground floor of this property to her. The plaintiff has contended that on 10th June, 1997, the defendant No. 2 has executed a gift deed in favour of the plaintiff out of natural love and affection. This gift deed has been registered at the office of the Sub-Registrar of Assurances at Delhi. The plaintiff has also urged that she is in exclusive possession of the ground floor of the suit property since the execution of the gift deed.

(2.) PARAS 5-9 of the plaint contain certain details of litigation between the parties which include a criminal complaint filed by the defendant No. 2 on 27th September, 2003 against the plaintiff and legal proceedings arising therefrom. It is specifically admitted that on 10th September, 2004, the Delhi High Court directed the plaintiff and her husband to hand over the possession of the drawing room of the suit property to the defendant No. 2. The plaintiff states that in pursuance of the said directions, the plaintiff has handed over the possession of the drawing room on the ground floor of the suit property to the defendant No. 2 on 13th September, 2004 and that the defendant No. 2 continues to be in possession of the same even on date. It is also stated in the plaint that, thereafter, for the purposes of maintaining family peace and harmony, the plaintiff along with her family has shifted from the suit property to official/ government accommodation.

(3.) IT has been stated that the suit has. been necessitated on account of the evil design of the defendant No. 1 to grab the suit property for which pressure has been put on the plaintiff.