JUDGMENT

1. The instant appeal has been filed under Order XLI read with Section 96 Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) assailing impugned judgment and decree dated 07th February, 2023 passed by Ld. ADJ, Dwarka Courts, Delhi in case bearing CS No.1013/2019 titled as Raj Kumar v. Pradeep Kumar & Anr..

The Suit

2. The respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction, claiming to be the owner and in possession of property bearing no. B-140, Partap Garden, Bindapur, New Delhi-110059, admeasuring 200 Sq.Yards, since 1987. The appellant/defendant no.1 was the son and appellant/defendant no.2, the wife of defendant no.1 was daughter-in-law of the respondent/plaintiff. As per the plaintiff, he had given oral permission to the defendants to live in a part of the suit property.

3. The defendant/appellants would, however, regularly quarrel with the respondent/plaintiff. By using threats and coercion; they retained permissive possession of the suit property. No money was ever paid by the defendants to the plaintiff at any point of time. Besides the threats, the plaintiff was assaulted by the defendants as well, and also on occasions when defendant no.1 was under the influence of alcohol. They also threatened to file a false case under section 498A IPC.

4. The plaintiff was left with no option but to disown both of them by way of publication in daily newspaper `Virat Vaibhav' dated 07th December, 2019 severing all relations with the defendants. Thereafter, he kept on persuading them to leave the said property and manage a living on their own but he continued to be threatened and assaulted by them.

5. In the month of November, 2019, the defendant no.1 in an inebriated condition broke open the lock of kitchen, almirahs and locker of the plaintiff, removed his belongings and when the plaintiff objected, the defendant no.1 started assaulting him. PCR was called, however, no complaint was registered. Later a police complaint was filed to the SHO and other higher officers.

6. Therefore, the suit was filed for possession of the said property and payment of unauthorized usage and occupation charges at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per day, as also praying for mandatory and permanent injunction against the defendants for alienating said property of the plaintiff or creating any third party rights.

The Written Statement

7. The defendants took the objection that they were in possession of the property since the plaintiff had orally mortgaged the suit property with them having taken loan of Rs 12,38,700/- in cash from the defendants on 6 different occasions from 2007 to 2019. They also claimed that a mortgage deed was executed on 28th May, 2019. Accordingly, it had been agreed that the defendant no.1 would let out rooms of the property and collect the rent. It was further alleged that the suit was barred by the law of jurisdiction as per aw of Specific Relief Act. Further, in the para- wise reply of the written statement, general denials of averments of the plaint were made.

The Impugned Judgment

8. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff while deciding an application under Order XII Rule 6, CPC filed by him on the basis that the defendants, in their written statement, did not deny ownership of the plaintiff qua the suit property being his self-acquired property and they had no right, title or interest with respect to the same. The only defence taken was of alleged mortgage deed. As regards the mortgage deed, the Ld. Trial Court raised a query to the defendants requisitioning the original mortgage deed but the defendants claimed to have lost the same after filing the written statement. Further an argument was raised by the counsel for the defendants that in light of the judgment of this Court in Avneet Kaur Vs Sadhu Singh bearing Neutral Citation No.2020/DHC/002453, the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit by virtue of the bar created under section 7(1)(d) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, and hence the plaint ought to ha