LAXMI @ MONU Vs. MUKESH RANA & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant no. 2 in the suit, and who is the sister-in-law of the respondent no. 1/plaintiff, impugning the Judgment of the trial court dated 20.03.2018, by which the trial court has decreed the suit filed by the respondent no.1/plaintiff/brother-in-law against the appellant/defendant no. 2/ sister-in-law, to the extent of the relief of possession, under Order XII Rule 6 CPC by holding that it stands admitted as per the pleadings in the suit that the respondent no. 1/plaintiff was the owner of the property purchased in terms of a Sale Deed registered with the SubRegistrar on 12.12.2015 and the owner is thus entitled to possession from the appellant/defendant no. 2 who was a gratuitous licensee.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the respondent no. 1/ plaintiff filed the subject suit for possession, injunction and mesne profits pleading that the suit property being House No. 198/28, Khasra No. 421, Village Chandrawali @ Shahdara, Delhi was owned by the respondent no. 1/plaintiff as he had purchased the same in terms of a Sale Deed registered with the Sub-Registrar on 12.12.2015 as Document No. 1072 in Additional Book No. 1, Volume No. 37 at Page No. 163 to 168. It was pleaded that the respondent no. 2/defendant no. 1 was the younger brother of the respondent no. 1/plaintiff and that the appellant/defendant no. 2 was the wife of the respondent no. 2/defendant no. 1. Both the defendants in the suit, including the appellant who is the defendant no. 2, sought permission to stay in one room on the first floor of the suit property from the respondent no. 1/plaintiff, and accordingly, a temporary license was granted to the appellant/defendant no. 2 and the respondent no. 2/defendant no. 1 to stay in the suit property and to shift as soon as an alternate arrangement of a premises was made. Temporary license was granted out of natural love and affection because the respondent no. 2/defendant no. 1 was the real brother of respondent no.1/plaintiff and the appellant/defendant no. 2 was the wife of respondent no. 2/defendant no. 1. Since the appellant/defendant no. 2 and respondent no. 2/defendant no. 1 failed to vacate the suit premises, a Legal Notice dated 14.10.2016 was served for terminating the license and thereafter, the subject suit was filed. It was also pleaded in the plaint that appellant/defendant no. 2 is a quarrelsome lady who has on multiple occasions physically assaulted the wife of the respondent no. 1/plaintiff causing severe injuries and resulting in registration of criminal complaints. It is also pleaded that the appellant/defendant no. 2 is habitual in creating a scene and calling the police, thereby, disturbing family harmony. It was further pleaded that the appellant/defendant no. 2 not only picked up quarrels with respondent no. 1/plaintiff but also with his old and ailing father who was a heart patient and he expired on 03.08.2016.

(3.) The suit was essentially contested only by the appellant/defendant no. 2, and it was pleaded by her that instead of her harassing the family members, on the contrary, she had been harassed and she had registered criminal complaints against the respondent no. 1/plaintiff as also the other family members. While replying to paras 1 to 3 of the plaint, and which refer to the ownership of the respondent no. 1/plaintiff in terms of a registered Sale Deed, it was stated that these paras are a matter of record. In order to appreciate the issue of admission for the suit being decreed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, paras 1 to 3 of the plaint and the corresponding reply of the appellant/defendant no. 2 to these paras in the written statement are required to be noted and these paras are reproduced as under: Paras 1 to 3 of the plaint