POONAM MAHAJAN Vs. SHASHI MAHAJAN AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-defendant has not been successful in defending the suit for mandatory injunction seeking ejectment from the House No.63, Sector 15, Panchkula.

(2.) The plaintiffs sought the possession of the first floor of the house, aforementioned, to be in possession of appellant-defendant, on the premise that they were creating nuisance and extending the threats. The status of the defendant, according to the plaintiffs, was of a licensee being son and daughter-in-law/defendant Nos.1 and 2. It was pleaded that her son/defendant No.2 was married to defendant No.1 on 27/1/1999 and two children aged 10 and 11 years were born out. The construction on first floor was made only for the purpose of residence of the son and his family. In other words, they were permitted to live on the first floor. Defendant No.1 lodged FIR under Ss. 406, 498-A and 323 IPC against the plaintiff as well as respondent/defendant No.2/husband. It is, in these circumstances, ejectment was sought. The defendants opposed the suit by taking objection of maintainability, payment of court fees. It was pleaded that defendant had already granted protection under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and sought the stay of the suit, under the provisions of Sec. 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was alleged that the property was joint, which was purchased from the funds from Yash Mahajan, her father-in-law.

(3.) Since the parties were at variance, the trial Court framed the following issues:-