KAVITA GAMBHIR Vs. HARI CHAND GAMBHIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is filed by an unsuccessful defendant in a suit for possession and mesne profits filed by the two respondents herein in respect of House no. 220, Pocket-7, Block-C, Sector-8, Rohini, Delhi-(hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property') for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 27th March 2008 passed by the Additional District Judge whereby she has been directed to vacate the first floor of the suit property and also to pay mesne profits @ Rs. 3250/- p.m.

(2.) THE relevant facts as culled out from the pleadings and evidence of the parties, documents on record, as well as the submissions made before this Court by the counsel for the parties, may first be noticed. The elder son of the respondents, who shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the plaintiffs', got married to the appellant, who shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the defendant', on 4th July 1995. The 'doli' of the defendant after her marriage was brought to the house of Gambhirs in Rohini where at that time the plaintiffs and their two unmarried sons were already living as a joint family. As per the case of the plaintiffs from the day the defendant got married to their son Anil Gambhir they started living in one room set on the first floor portion and they themselves were occupying the one room set on the ground floor while their younger son after his marriage living in the one room which was there on the second floor with his wife. After some years of their marriage the relations between the defendant and her in-laws including her husband started getting strained and became so bad that the plaintiffs who were living on the ground floor and their younger son and his wife who had been occupying the second floor had to shift to Gurgaon. Defendant's husband also left that house and started living separately in some house in NOIDA leaving behind his wife and two children in the Rohini house. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant had no legal right to stay in the suit property which was their exclusive property having been acquired from DDA by plaintiff no.1, Hari Chand Gambhir from his own funds and constructed also from his own money and the loan taken by him from his employer and that it was only out of love for his wife that he had got her name also included in the perpetual lease deed executed by DDA. It was further pleaded that the defendant in their absence took possession of the ground floor and second floors also, taking advantage of their having shifted to Gurgaon. Since the plaintiffs did not want their daughter-in-law to stay any more in their house they served a notice dated 27/10/04 upon the defendant to vacate the suit property by 30/11/04 but she did not do that. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiffs on 11/01/05 against the defendant for getting back the possession of the suit property from her. Since her occupation of the entire suit property was claimed to be unauthorised after she had failed to surrender the possession, the plaintiffs also claimed mesne profits @ Rs. 15,000/- p.m. The plaint was valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction at Rs. 12 lacs being the value of the suit property.

(3.) IN the replication the plaintiffs while reiterating their case set out in the plaint pleaded that even the children born out of the wedlock between their son, Anil Gambhir and the defendant had no right to remain in the suit property.