ASHA DHINGRA Vs. SHANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner No.1 is the wife and petitioner No.2 & 3 are the daughters of respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 is mother and respondent No.3 brother of respondent No.2. Petitioner No.1's case in the suit was that the father of the respondents No.2 and 3 acquired a residential house bearing No.Z-5, Model Town-II, Delhi-110009, with the HUF funds. That in 1994 respondents forced her to bring money from her parents for raising construction on the second floor of the said house. That the petitioner No.1 brought gold ornaments weighing 15 Tolas of the value approx. of Rs.75,000.00 from her parents. The said gold ornaments were sold and with proceeds of the same the respondents raised construction on the second floor. Subsequently under pressure from respondents her parents gave a further sum of Rs.20,000.00 for completing the construction. Thus petitioner paid a sum of Rs.95,000.00 with which construction of second floor was raised and completed on the house in question. With her money construction on second floor was raised coupled with the fact that house in question was bought with HUF funds. Hence petitioner No.1 has a vested right because with her money second floor was constructed and petitioners No.2 and 3 have a right in the house in question because it was purchased with HUF funds. It is in this background that petitioners filed suit for perpetual and mandatory injunction. Along with the suit they sought interim relief seeking right of residence and restraining orders against respondents from selling, disposing or transferring the house in question.

(2.) That respondents No.2 and 3 took the defence that they had already relinquished their right in the house in favour of the respondent No.1 i.e. their mother. That respondent No.1 being exclusive owner of the property hence neither petitioners can have any right of residence nor injunction could be granted in their favour. Respondent No.1 did not contest the interim stay application.

(3.) That by the impugned order the learned Additional District Judge declined to grant injunction, inter alia, on the ground that petitioners could not claim right of residence in the house in question because she had been fearing threat from respondents. Secondly petitioners have no right in the house which exclusively belongs to respondent No.1. Moreover, the proper course for the petitioner was to file a petition under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.