Point of Law: Domestic violence - While the DV Act is a social welfare legislation granting protection to women who are victims of domestic violence, every dispute amongst family members cannot be converted into a dispute under the DV Act.

JUDGMENT :

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. The present second appeal has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 16th November 2019, passed by the ld. ADJ (North-east), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter, “first Appellate Court”) in RCA DJ No. 46/19, arising out of the initial order of the ld. SCJ, (North-east), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter, “Trial Court”) dated 18th April 2019, in Suit No. 148/16. The trial court had allowed the application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC, and decreed the suit. The First Appellate Court, dismissed the appeal challenging the said judgment/decree passed by the Trial Court.

3. The background to the present second appeal is that the Plaintiff/Respondent in the suit Sh. Ganga Saran (hereinafter `Plaintiff’), who is the father of Appellant No.2, filed a suit against his son and daughter-in-law i.e., Sh. Vinay Kumar and Ms. Aarti Sharma, respectively (hereinafter `Defendants’). The reliefs sought in the suit before the Trial Court, are as under:

i. Pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, their attorney, successor, assignee, legal heirs, associates etc. thereby restraining them from disposing-off the suit property No. A-65, Gali No.03, A-Block, Rama Garden, Delhi-110094, which is more specifically shown in red colour in site plan attached.

ii. Pass a decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, their attorney, successor, assignee, legal heirs etc. thereby directing them to remove themselves from the suit Property and hand over peaceful vacant possession of the same to plaintiff in respect of property bearing No. A-65, Gali No.3, A-Block, Rama Garden, Delhi-110094, as more specifically shown in red colour in site plan attached.

iii. Pass a decree of future/pendent-lite damages/mesne profits @ Rs. 8,000/- p.m. from the dated of filling present petition till suit property is vacated and peaceful possession is handed over to plaintiff.

iv. Any other relief as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, in the interest of justice.”

4. The case of the Plaintiff in the suit is that he is the owner of the property bearing No. A-65, Gali No.3, A-Block, Rama Garden, Delhi, (hereinafter, “suit property”) as shown in the site plan. In view of various disputes between him and his son/daughter-in-law, he sought permanent and mandatory injunction, damages seeking vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property and removal of his son and daughter-in-law. Damages and mesne profits were also sought by the Plaintiff in the suit.

5. In the written statement before the Trial Court, the case of the Defendants, was that the suit property was purchased from the joint family fund. The said property is stated to have been purchased out of the funds generated by the sale of the earlier property which was originally registered in the name of the mother i.e., the wife of the Plaintiff, and upon her demise in 2007, the said property had devolved upon the husband i.e., the Plaintiff, as also their children, i.e., the Defendants. Thus, it was claimed in the Written Statement that as the suit property was bought using the funds that were generated out of the sale of the earlier property, to which the son had a right, it does not exclusively belong to the Plaintiff.

6. Vide order dated 18th April 2019, the Trial Court examined the matter and arrived at the following findings:

“(a) Thus, in order to succeed under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, the admissions by the defendant must be clear, unequivocal and unambiguous.

(b) The plaintiff Sh. Ganga Saran is admittedly the father of defendant no. l and father-in-law of defendant no. 2.

(c) The plaintiff has claimed to be the owner of the said property i.e. A-65, gali no.3, A Block, Rarna Garden, Delhi measuring 100 Sq. Yards h