MEERA NIRESHWALIA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner Mrs. Meera Nireshwalia, who lived with her husband S. Nireshwalia (7th Respondent) in a house in Anna Nagar allotted under the Anna Nagar Housing Board L.I.G. Scheme, is the petitioner. A mother of two daughters already married, and a son settled in business, she, however had to suffer first on account, as alleged, of non-payment of the instalments to the Housing Board by her husband, who, it is alleged, first had agreed to transfer the allotment of' the house in her name, but later obtained the sale deed from the Housing Board in his name without her knowledge. She was threatened and harassed, by her husband. she has alleged, who threatened to sell the property, the ideas which she always opposed on the ground that she had made the major contribution towards the purchase of the house by pledging her jewellery and raising money. She filed O.S. No.7325 of 1985 before the City Civil Court, Madras, for injunction restraining the seventh respondent (husband) and his transferee from in any manner interfering with her possession of the property. A memo of compromise was filed in the said suit on 21-7-1986 between the seventh respondent and the petitioner stating that the seventh respondent never had any intention to evict her from the premises except by due process of law and accordingly undertaking not to evict except under due process of law. In view of the said undertaking the suit was dismissed.

(2.) In April, 1989, the petitioner found that the door and the structures of her house were damaged by some miscreants unknown to her and that the seventh respondent had, in the meantime, already sold the house to respondents 8 and 9 under a sale deed dated 30-9-1988 followed by an agreement between the seventh respondent on the one hand and respondents 8 and 9 on the other, containing as one of the Clauses, "the first party (7th respondent) affirms and undertakes to try his best to persuade his wife to vacate the property. In the event of failure of his efforts the second party is at liberty to take all necessary and appropriate action lawfully permissible to obtain vacant possession of the said property. The first party on his part will render all necessary assistance, support and help required to achieve this abovesaid purpose."

(3.) On 7th of July, 1989, according to the petitioner, a constable from the Anna Nagar Police Station came to her house and informed her that she must meet Nandakumar, Inspector, K-4 Police Station, Anna Nagar (5th Respondent) with reference to her complaint with respect to the damages to the door and the structures of the house in April, 1989. She went to see the 5th respondent at about 10-30 a.m. on that day itself. When, however, she started telling him about her complaint, the 5th respondent called a woman constable Ms. Poonithai and told her to search her (Petitioner) and told her that there was a complaint against her. She wanted to know about the nature of the complaint and also to consult a lawyer or a Magistrate. It is alleged,