HARNIV SANDHU Vs. SANDEEP SINGH SANDHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been directed against the order dated 15. 6. 1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh. By this order, the learned Additional District Judge has confirmed the order passed by the learned trial Court on 8. 6. 1998 by which the learned trial Court had dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and CPC for interim injunction.

(2.) MR . Chhibbar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner-plaintiff is admittedly the wife of the respondent No. 1 namely, Sandeep Singh Sandhu and she is the daughter-in-law of respondent No. 2 Davinder Kaur Sandhu. The learned Counsel further submits that the petitioner-plaintiff had been put into possession of the suit premises by the respondents themselves when they were not prepared to keep her in matrimonial home situated at Amritsar. He further submits that the learned lower appellate Court has passed the impugned order on the wrong assumption that the petitioner-plaintiff has failed to establish her possession for a long period. In this connection he has referred to para 10 of the grounds of revision and submits that the plaintiff started residing in the house towards the end of 1997. He, therefore, contends that from this fact it is clearly established that the petitioner- plaintiff has been residing in the suit premises for a long period. The learned Counsel also submitted that in para 2 of the plaint a clear averment was made by the plaintiff that she had been living in this house since the end of 1997 and this averment has not been specifically denied by the respondents-defendants, in the written statement.

(3.) LASTLY , the learned counsel submitted that the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Premji Ratensey Shah and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. , J. T. 1994 (6) S. C. 585, was not applicable to the facts of the present case as in that case there was a clear finding given by the Supreme Court that the defendants had not ghost of right, title or interest in the lands acquired from the original owner, but in the present case, the petitioner had the right in the property.