SUNITA GANGWAL Vs. CHOTTEY LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant in the suit impugning the judgment of the trial court dated 13.02.2015 whereby trial court has decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff filed seeking possession of the suit property being the entire ground floor of House No. I-2/182/183, Madangir, New Delhi as shown in red and green colour in the site plan Ex.PW1/6. Damages/mesne profits were also granted at Rs.2,000/- per month pendente lite and future till handing over possession of the suit property.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed the subject suit for possession and mesne profits with respect to the suit property pleading that he was owner of the suit property in terms of the usual documentation being the agreement to sell, power of attorney, receipt etc dated 20.06.1981 (Ex.PW-1/1 to Ex.PW-1/4). In the plaint, it was pleaded that the appellant/defendant persuaded her husband, being the son of the respondent/plaintiff, to separate from his parents and that one house of the respondent/plaintiff should be transferred in the name of the appellant/defendant. On account of the aforesaid fight on 03.02.2004, intervention took place of the members of the community and after controlling the situation, the Panchayat of the community decided that the son of the respondent/plaintiff viz the husband of the appellant/defendant should live separately from the respondent/plaintiff. Accordingly, the appellant/defendant on the same day i.e 03.02.2004 left with her parents to their house along with all her possessions being jewellery, clothes etc. The son of the respondent/plaintiff namely Sh. Sanjay also started living separately in a rented accommodation. Respondent/plaintiff on account of mental torture caused by the appellant/defendant disowned his son Sh. Sanjay from the properties of the respondent/plaintiff in terms of the publication in the newspaper "?Rashtriya Sahara "? on 14.04.2004. It is further pleaded in the plaint that the appellant/defendant joined the company of her husband in the rented house on 17.04.2004 but on account of her not being able to adjust with her husband, she once again left the company of the son of the respondent/plaintiff on 24.07.2004. Appellant/defendant is pleaded to have filed false complaints against the respondent/plaintiff and his family members before the Crime Against Women (CAW) Cell. Before the CAW Cell, the son of the respondent/plaintiff gave in writing that the appellant/defendant can join his company in the rented house and the matter was adjourned to 24.10.2006, but on 22.10.2006, the appellant/defendant along with her family members broke open and forcibly entered into the ground floor of the suit property. PCR was called and proceedings under Section 107 / 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( Cr.P.C .) were initiated. Plaint thereafter makes reference to various other criminal complaints including a complaint filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Sections 452 / 324 / 427 / 448 / 506 / 120-B / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ) before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate at New Delhi where the appellant/defendant along with her associates are facing trial. For the sake of security, it is pleaded in the plaint, that the respondent/plaintiff and his family members shifted to another house belonging to the respondent/plaintiff at I-2/205, Madangir, New Delhi on a plot admeasuring 25 sq. yards. In view of the aforesaid facts, respondent/plaintiff served a legal notice dated 29.12.2012 upon the appellant/defendant for vacating the ground floor of the suit property in unauthorized occupation of the appellant/defendant, but since the same failed to yield the desirable result, hence the subject suit was filed.

(3.) Appellant/defendant contested the suit by pleading that all the properties including the suit property were Joint Hindu Family properties. It was further pleaded in the written statement by the appellant/defendant that the respondent/plaintiff and his sons are well off earning handsome amounts. It was pleaded that out of the common pool, various properties were purchased including in the native village in Rajasthan. It was further pleaded that the suit property was the matrimonial home of the appellant/defendant and she was entitled to live in the same in view of the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act , 2005. Suit was therefore prayed to be dismissed.