NIRMAL KAUR Vs. GEETINDER GREWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff instituted a suit against the defendants claiming the relief of permanent injunction as regards interference in her peaceful possession over House No.5639, Phase III, Modern Residential Complex (hereinafter to be referred as 'suit property'). Relief of mandatory injunction was also sought for directing the defendants to deliver the vacant possession of the suit property that had been unlawfully and unauthorizedly taken over during the pendency of the suit. THE plaintiff is the widow of Major Satinderjit Singh Brar who was the owner of the suit property and had expired on 10.8.1997. Defendants No.1 and 2 are the daughter and son-in- law respectively of the plaintiff. Plaintiff pleaded that she along with her husband had been residing in the suit property as the absolute owner in possession thereof. It was pleaded that a telephone connection, gas connection and electricity bills were also pertaining to the suit property and the same were issued in the name of late Major Brar. Plaintiff pleaded that her husband expired at his ancestral home in Muktsar and when she was away for performing his last rites and rituals, she had been threatened by the defendants to give up the suit property to them failing which she would be forcibly dispossessed. Further more, the defendants were stated to have unauthorizedly occupied the built up portion of the entire first floor as also the second floor of the suit property during the pendency of the suit.

(2.) THE suit was contested by the defendants wherein a stand was taken that defendant No.1 had, in fact, applied for allotment of suit property to the Chandigarh Housing Board through her father, namely, Major Brar as he was eligible for allotment under the quota reserved for ex-servicemen. At the time of possession of the suit property, the same was in a partial state of construction. Defendant No.1 stated that upon attaining possession of the suit property from the Chandigarh Housing Board, the same had been handed over to her and she was given the charge of completing the construction of the suit property as also of furnishing the same. Defendant No.1 further stated that she was the sole nominee of her father in the records of the Chandigarh Housing Board insofar as the suit property was concerned. Defendants stated that the plaintiff had never been in possession of the suit property. Rather, the ration card, voter card and other relevant documents demonstrated that the plaintiff was a permanent resident of Muktsar. Defendants further stated that the instant suit had been filed to take illegal possession of the suit property and in fact, she had entered into possession of such property only on 5.11.1997 with the help of police assistance by mis-leading and mis-construing the facts as regards the passing of the status quo order by the Court.

(3.) THE trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 1.11.2006 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and issued directions to restore the possession of the defendants in terms of vacating such portion which was under her possession as obtained by her on 5.11.1997. Liberty, however, was granted to the plaintiff to seek possession of the suit property in due process of law in terms of availing the appropriate remedy available to her. A civil appeal preferred by the plaintiff-appellant has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh vide judgment dated 25.4.2011. Resultantly, the plaintiff-appellant is in second appeal before this Court.