Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Del) 734

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ASHA MENON, J.
Madalsa Sood - Plaintiff
Versus
Maunicka Makkar & Anr. - Defendants
CS(OS) 93 of 2021
Decided On : 10-12-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Plaintiff : Mr. Rajat Aneja & Ms. Chandrika Gupta.
For the Defendants :Mr. D.K. Goswami, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Saharsh Jauhar & Mr. Kuldeep Singh.

Point of Law: The decision by a criminal court does not bind the civil court but would be relevant while dealing with the suit for possession or eviction that may be filed against the daughter-in-law.

Headnote:
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XII Rule 6 - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 - Section 17, 12 and 19 - Suit for possession, damages and permanent injunction - Right to reside in a shared household - Seeking judgment on admissions qua relief of possession - Whether plaintiff must be put to rigours of a trial to determine whether she has made out a case for re-claiming possession of suit premises or whether facts as set out in written statement and plaint would be sufficient to come to a conclusion - Whether defendant No.1 has raised a triable issue with regard to the title of plaintiff - Plaintiff claims to be the exclusive and absolute owner of suit property - Suit property forms part of a larger structure comprising of other floors - Suit has been filed against daughter-in-law of plaintiff who is the defendant No.1 and her mother who is defendant No.2. The son of the plaintiff and husband of defendant No.1 expired.
Finding of the Court: It is more than amply clear that defendant No.1 has staked claim to the assets. In fact, in para No.5 of written statement she has specifically claimed that she was entitled to a sum of Rs.10 crores as compensation for loss, injuries and mental trauma suffered by her at the hands of her stepson and the plaintiff though no counterclaim has been filed and nor is the stepson before this Court - When faced with competing claims of the parties, one constituting a shared household and the other the right of the senior citizen to live peacefully in the twilight of their life, appropriate reliefs must be given. In view of the clear facts and circumstances, the plaintiff is clearly entitled to seek possession of the suit premises from the two defendants without the rigours of an unnecessary and prolonged trial at her age - In the written statement the allegation is that plaintiff and the grandson were trying to force the defendants “to return to Pune”. Interestingly, the affidavit of the defendant No.2 also states her residential address to be the suit premises but it cannot be her permanent residence. The defendant No.2 had arrived from somewhere upon the death of her son-in-law. Clearly, therefore, there has been suppression of facts by the defendants - Suit is partly decreed in respect of prayer (A) of plaint.
Result: Application allowed.

ORDER :

I.A. 12356/2021 (of plaintiff u/O XII R-6 CPC for judgment on admissions)

1. This order shall dispose of the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’ for short) seeking judgment on admissions qua the relief of possession.

2. The suit has been filed for possession, damages and permanent injunction in respect of property bearing No.A-44, Third Floor, Friends Colony (East), New Delhi-110065 (“suit property” for short). The plaintiff claims to be the exclusive and absolute owner of the suit property. The suit property forms part of a larger structure comprising of other floors. The suit has been filed against the daughter-in-law of the plaintiff who is the defendant No.1 and her mother who is the defendant No.2. The son of the plaintiff and the husband of the defendant No.1 Sh. Vikas Sood expired on 29th September, 2020.

3. Mr. Rajat Aneja, learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the case as set up in the plaint by the plaintiff and as per the documents also placed on record by her, shows that the suit property belongs to her. The complete property at A-44, Friends Colony (East), New Delhi was originally owned by the husband of the plaintiff being Mr. B.B. Sood. A Perpetual Lease Deed dated 26th June, 1973 had been executed in his favour. He expired intestate on 13th April, 1999 leaving behind the plaintiff, her son Sh. Vikas Sood (now deceased) and Ms. Babita Malhotra (married daughter). A Relinquishment Deed was executed by Sh. Vikas Sood and Ms. Babita Malhotra in favour of the plaintiff on 15th December, 1999 which was a registered document. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that on the basis of these documents a Conveyance Deed was also executed in the name of the plaintiff on 12th December, 2000. None of these documents have been challenged by the plaintiff's son and daughter or even by defendant No.1 in any proceedings. The defendants have also not questioned the execution of the documents in this case, though the defence raised is that the defendant No.1 had share in the suit property through her late husband who had a share in the suit property. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that the defendant No.1 had no tenable defence and therefore the plaintiff was entitled to a decree of possession qua her.

4. As regards defendant No.2, the learned counsel submitted that she had absolutely no right to remain in the suit property and no such right has been claimed or asserted in the written statement. The learned counsel submitted that the judgment on admissions was being sought only with regard to possession as prayed for in prayer (A) of the plaint which is reproduced below:

“A. It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass a Decree of POSSESSION in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant Nos.1 and 2, thereby directing the said Defendants, their agents, servants, heirs, assignees or anyone acting on their behalf to hand over the vacant physical possession of the Suit Property, bearing No.A-44, Third Floor, Friends Colony (East), New Delhi-110065, as shown in Red colour in the Site Plan annexed to the Plaint;”

As to the question of mesne profits / damages, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the same could still be settled on trial. The learned counsel for the plaintiff also argued that the defendant No.1 was making life miserable for the plaintiff by filing cases against her and raising quarrels as she was claiming rights in the suit property and other properties belonging to the plaintiff and also raising disputes with the grandson of the plaintiff (born to her late son and his first wife). It was submitted that the defendant No.1 was being aided by her mother, defendant No.2 who had come from Pune after the demise of the son of the plaintiff on 29th September, 2020 and despite having no rights to remain in the suit premises had continued to remain