RAJ SINGH Vs. SAMEY SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute is between the father-in-law on one side and on the other side his unfortunate daughter-in-law and her father, mother and brother. Petitioner Raj Singh is the plaintiff. He filed a suit invoking remedy under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act seeking restoration of possession of property bearing No.234, Village Rithala, Delhi.

(2.) He impleaded his daughter-in-law Smt.Usha as a defendant and her mother, brother and father as co-defendants, alleging that on 19.11.1993 his daughter-in-law aided and abetted by her father, brother and mother took forcible possession of the suit property.

(3.) Whereas father, brother and mother of the daughter-in-law disclaimed any concern with the suit property, the daughter-in-law asserted that she and her children were in lawful possession of the suit property; that after she got married to the son of the plaintiff on 22.11.1989 she started residing in the matrimonial house at Ashok Vihar where even plaintiff was residing. That she was tricked to shift to the suit property as plaintiff i.e. her father-in- law and her mother-in-law wanted their son and his family to shift to the suit property. That when along with her husband and children she shifted to the suit property, her husband left her and returned to his parents. She stated that the suit property was in the village and she was tricked to move from a house in the urban area to a dilapidated house in the village. She stated that the suit property was ancestral in the hands of the plaintiff and that, if not she, her children i.e. her sons had a right by birth to jointly possess and occupy the suit property. She further stated that on 21.11.1993 the local panchayat intervened at the asking of the plaintiff and took a decision that she along with her children would be entitled to live in the suit property.