DAMODAR NARYAN SINGH Vs. SARDAR HIRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by defendant son, as petitioner, challenging the order dated 31st March, 2002 passed by learned Judge, Fourth Bench of the Court of the small causes at Calcutta in SCC No. 113/96 whereby and whereunder with reference to the application under section 41 of the Presidencies Small Causes Courts Act, 1882, the defendant son was directed to vacate the suit premises and to deliver the possession of suit premises to the plaintiff, the father, within two months from date of the order upon decreeing the suit for khas possession of the suit premises on eviction of the defendant son therefrom in favour of the plaintiff father.

(2.) In the application under section 41 of Presidency Small Causes Act, 1882 hereinafter refer to as the said Act, the plaintiff, which is the father of the defendant of the said application prayed for recovery of possession of suit room by eviction of the defendant son therefrom on the ground that the defendant son was a mere licensee in the suit premises and such license was revoked by the letter dated 13th April, 1996 through learned advocate. The defendant son for non-compliance of such revocation notice became liable for eviction from the suit premises and the plaintiff father was entitled to have the recovery of possession. From the plaint and the evidence on record it is an admitted position that the property was purchased in the name of plaintiff father in the year 1980 when the plaintiff's family was consisting of five sons and daughters. All the sons at the material time of purchase of the property were unmarried and they resided with the plaintiff in joint mess. Even after marriage of the defendant in the year 1993 who is third son of the plaintiff, they were leaving in the joint mess with the plaintiff. It is further in evidence of the plaintiff that in the year 1995 sometime in the month of the January or February, defendant was made separated from the plaintiff's joint mess and defendant along with his wife was allowed to reside in the suit room as licensee when the earlier tenant Tapan Kr. Mitra vacated the said room. It is also admitted in evidence that plaintiff gave the marriage of defendant son when defendant was unemployed aged about 20 years and allowed the defendant and his wife to stay in one room of the house on condition to obey the plaintiff father and to follow him being a member of a joint family. It was further alleged that since the defendant son was not in the speaking term with the family members and even started to cause disturbance of family peace by different ways including assault to the parents, taking away the ornaments of sisters etc., the plaintiff under painful circumstances issued the notice revoking the leave and license as was granted. The defendant son appeared in the said suit and by filling written statement denied the allegations as made by the plaintiff father. Defendant son had set up a case of independent title over the property by contending, inter alia, that he contributed Rs. 12,000/- while the property was purchased in the year 1980 and his another brother contributed Rs. 40,000/-. It is alleged in the written statement that at the material time of purchase and even thereafter plaintiff father had no income. Plaintiff father was residing in a 'Gurewara' and accordingly he had no means to purchase a property. It is contended further that defendant brother who contributed major amount of Rs. 40,000/- allowed the defendant to stay in the suit room with the family members. From the evidence on records and the deposition of the witnesses concerned it appears that the defendant son is leaving in the suit room with his family members namely wife and a minor son. It is revealed in evidence that the plaintiff father accepted dowry money on giving marriage of the defendant with one Smt. Gouri Kour. From the deposition of Gouri Kour it appears that she was tortured by plaintiff father-in-law and mother-in-law and as a result, a criminal case was registered at Jorasankho Police Station under section 498A of Indian Penal Code, which resulted the investigating authorities to raid the house thrice to seize articles and gold ornaments as were given by her father. Those documents were marked as exhibit-B series. It has been further deposed by Gouri Kour that after six months of initiation of said criminal case, the plaintiff father-in-law instituted this suit to compel her husband withdraw the said criminal case under section 498A Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Hence, from the material evidence on records it appears that there was a denial of the plaintiff's story about leave and license. The evidence on record depicts a pathetic situation, which can be termed as a social and moral pollution. It would in fact strikes at the root of fiber of family concept. This Court on careful consideration of the entire matters, however, directed by the earlier order, to have a settlement in between the parties as no litigation should be allowed to continue where the same would lead to break family tie resulting a distortion in the nucleus of family cell. The Indian society from the age old period is a society interwoven by the personal relationship of the family members wherein the parents of the family are considered as the head of the family to look after the welfare of sons, daughters, daughter-in-laws, grand sons and daughters. Head of the family, the father accordingly vested with moral as well as legal obligation to maintain family members, who are defendants upon him. Such obligation even extended to maintain widowed daughter-in-law having legal sanction in terms of law as codified under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Under section 19, father-in-law has been made obliged in terms of the statute to maintain widowed daughter-in-law. The provision of section 19 reads as follows: