Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JAYANT NATH, J.
Savitri Devi - Appellant
Versus
Manoj Kumar and Another - Respondent
CS (OS) 910 of 2011
Decided On : 18-09-2013
possession - property dispute - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 17, Section 26 - The court discussed the validity of the Will, the rights of the plaintiff under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, and the bar on the jurisdiction of a civil court under Section 26 of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for possession of a property against the defendants, who were occupying the property illegally. The defendants contested the suit, claiming rights under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaintiff had a valid title to the property and that the defendants had no right to reside in the property under the Domestic Violence Act. The court also found that the suit was not barred under Section 26 of the Act.
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the Will, the rights of the plaintiff under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, and the jurisdiction of the civil court under Section 26 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the defendants had no right to reside in the property under the Domestic Violence Act as the property did not qualify as a 'shared household' under the Act. The court also found that the suit was not barred under Section 26 of the Act.
Final Decision: The court passed a decree of possession in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, along with a decree of injunction restraining the defendant from disturbing the plaintiff's possession over the property.
JAYANT NATH, J.
1. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff for possession of the property being 1st Floor, House No. T-279, Indira Colony, Narela, Delhi as per the rough site plan, Annexure P 1 and for mandatory injunction. Defendant No. 1 is the son and defendant No. 2 is the daughter-in-law of the plaintiff. As per the plaint, both the defendants are illegally and un-authorisedly occupying the first floor of the suit property comprising of four rooms, open space, one kitchen and two bathrooms and balconies. It is stated that the father-in-law of the plaintiff executed a Will dated 15.05.2006 in favour of the plaintiff whereby he bequeathed the suit property at Narela admeasuring 217 sq. yards and agricultural and residential property situated at village Singhu, Delhi. The father-in-law expired on 01.01.2007 and subsequent thereto, the plaintiff became absolute owner of the suit property. The plaintiff with her husband and children is residing at the ground floor of the suit property.
2. The plaint further states that the marriage of defendants No. 1 and 2 was solemnized on 23.02.2008. After the marriage, the plaintiff permitted user of first floor accommodation (suit property) to the defendants for their residential purpose. Thereafter, defendant No. 2 got employment as a clerk in the District & Sessions Court at Sonepat. On account of irreconcilable differences between the defendants, defendant No. 1 filed a petition for divorce seeking divorce from defendant No. 2. It is stated that defendant No. 2, thereafter, lodged a false and frivolous FIR being FIR No. 21 dated 04.09.2010 in Mahila Police Station, Sonepat against defendant No. 1 and also falsely implicated the plaintiff and her husband. The husband of the plaintiff was arrested and released from custody after about two weeks. The plaintiff was granted anticipatory bail. Defendant No. 2 has also filed a case under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the plaintiff and her husband. Hence, the present suit has been filed for recovery of possession of the suit property.
3. Defendant No. 1 has filed his written statement. In the said written statement, he has stated that the present suit is not maintainable against him as he is neither residing in the suit property nor he is in possession of the suit property. He has stated that he is residing in some rented accommodation at Rohini.
4. Defendant No. 2 has also filed her written statement. She has stated in the said written statement that the present suit is a collusive suit between the plaintiff and defendant No. 2. It is further stated that the plaintiff has no locus to file the present suit because she does not have a valid title to the suit property. It is stated that the Will dated 15.05.2006 propounded by the plaintiff is either forged or a manipulated document and in any case, the plaintiff is required to prove the alleged Will in accordance with law. It is further stated that the plaintiff has never applied for probate. It is further stated that defendant No. 2 has a right in the suit property.
5. This matter was heard on 15.03.2013 when it was directed that the only question which arises in the present suit is as to whether defendant No. 2 has any right to reside in the suit property on the plea of the same being her matrimonial house. It was held that the said issue does not require any evidence and arguments can be heard on this issue straightway. The contention of defendant No. 2 that an issue be framed as to the validity of the Will on the basis of which the plaintiff claims title was rejected inasmuch as defendant No. 2 is not a natural heir of Sh. Hukum Chand and thus, defendant No. 2 has no locus to challenge the Will of Sh. Hukum Chand. It was also noted that none of the legal heirs of Sh. Hukum Chand have challenged the said Will Hence, it was held that no issue needs to be framed as to the validity of the Will.
6. On 19.07.2013, it was clarified that the sa
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
