SUSHMA KUMARI Vs. GIRIJESH GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rfa No. 777/2017 and C.M. Appl. No. 33032/2017 (for stay)

(2.) The facts of the case are that respondent no. 1/plaintiff, a widow, filed the subject suit pleading that she was the owner of the suit property being the third floor of WZ-3335, Mahendra Park, Near Rani Bagh, Delhi-110034, in terms of a registered sale deed dated 16.9.2013. The second floor of the property WZ-3335 was also purchased by the respondent no.1/plaintiff in terms of registered sale deeds dated 30.4.2008 and 5.10.2016. Respondent no. 1/plaintiff pleaded that she had two sons and the appellant/defendant no.1 was the wife of one son being the defendant no. 3 in the suit, namely Sh. Gagan Gupta i.e Sh. Gagan Gupta was the husband of appellant/defendant no. 1 and the son of respondent no.1/plaintiff. In the plaint it is further pleaded that after marriage the appellant/defendant no.1 stayed in the second floor of the premises up to 15.2.2014 and thereafter left on 16.2.2014 to stay with her parents and she lived at her parental home till 3.6.2015. Appellant/defendant no.1 is stated to have filed false complaint in the Crime Against Women (CAW) Cell. Appellant/defendant no.1 is pleaded to have illegally entered into the possession of the suit property and with respect to which respondent no.1/plaintiff pleads that various police complaints were made. Respondent no.1/plaintiff pleaded that since she is the absolute owner of the suit property on 4.6.2015 and appellant/defendant no. 1 was in illegal possession of the same as she forcibly occupied the suit property being the third floor, therefore the suit for possession and injunction was prayed to be decreed in favour of the respondent no.1/plaintiff and as against the appellant/defendant no. 1.

(3.) Defendant no.2 in the suit is the real mother of the appellant/defendant no.1. They filed a joint written statement. It was denied that appellant/defendant no.1 had trespassed into third floor being the suit property and it was pleaded that actually the third floor being the suit property was purchased from the money which the respondent no.1/plaintiff received from the parents of the appellant/defendant no.1 prior to the marriage. It was pleaded that respondent no.1/plaintiff took Rs.5,00,000/- from the parents of the appellant/defendant no.1. It was also pleaded that appellant/defendant no. 1 did not stay in her parents' house till 3.6.2015 but she had in fact come to her "matrimonial home" being the third floor of the property on 5.5.2015 in view of the proceedings before the CAW cell. The suit was hence prayed to be dismissed.