SHWETA AND ANOTHER Vs. VIMAL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants/defendants impugn the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2016 passed by the learned trial court in a suit for recovery instituted by the respondent/plaintiff (husband of the appellant No.1 and son-in-law of the appellant No.2).

(2.) The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The case of the respondent/plaintiff in the suit was that his marriage was solemnised with the appellant No.1/defendant No.1 on 25.4.2012 at Lucknow as per the Hindu rites and ceremony. After the marriage, the parties had shifted to Delhi and started residing in a tenanted premises at Rohini. Within a few months of their marriage, disputes and differences had arisen between the parties. From 14.7.2012, the respondent/plaintiff started residing separately from the appellant No.1/defendant No.1. On 5.8.2012, the respondent/plaintiff reached the tenanted premises at Rohini, Delhi for vacating the same since the lease deed in respect thereof was expiring on the same day. He requested the appellant No.1/defendant No.1 to vacate the premises, but she declined to do so and instead, called the police. A constable from the local police station arrived at the spot and recorded the statement of the appellant No.1/defendant No.1. A compromise was arrived at between the parties, and the respondent/plaintiff did not take any of the household articles from the flat including a Hundai I-20 car parked there. The respondent/plaintiff claimed that he had agreed to hand over possession of the household articles to the appellant No.1/defendant No.1 in the absence of any space to store the same.

(3.) It has been averred in the plaint that on the very next day i.e. on 06.8.2012, the appellant No.2/defendant No.2 (father-in-law of the respondent/plaintiff) and their relatives arrived in Delhi, contacted the respondent/plaintiff and threatened him with dire consequences. As a result, the respondent/plaintiff did not visit the flat on 6.8.2012. After two days, when he visited the flat on 8.8.2012, he was shocked to discover that all the household articles purchased by him from his own funds after the marriage, were taken away by the appellants/defendants, without his consent or permission. Claiming that the appellants/defendants had no right to remove the household articles from the tenanted premises particularly when they had been purchased from his own funds, the respondent/plaintiff served on them a legal notice dated 4.6.2014, but they did not give any response thereto.