The court established that the suit property was self-acquired by the respondents and not a shared household, dismissing the appellant's claim of right to reside in the property.

Hari Pal Verma, J.

C.M. No. 17715-C of 2016

1. Prayer in this application filed under Section 149 CPC is for making up the deficiency of Court fee of Rs. 121.20 paisa.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed and the applicant is permitted to make up the deficiency of Court fee of Rs. 121.20 paisa.

C.M. No. 17716-C of 2016

This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 02 days in re-filing the appeal.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 02 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

R.S.A. No. 6803 of 2016

Appellant/defendant No. 2 Inderjeet Kaur wife of Karamjeet Singh has filed the present regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 08.8.2016 passed by learned District Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 16.5.2016 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), SAS Nagar, Mohali, was dismissed.

Briefly stated respondents No. 1 and 2/plaintiffs have filed a suit for mandatory injunction praying therein that defendants may be directed to vacate the two room set alongwith kitchen and bathroom on the ground floor of House No. 1211, Phase 3B2, SAS Nagar, Mohali, which was owned by them. The case of the respondents/plaintiffs is that the suit property is a self-acquired property and vests in them. Defendant No. 1 is the son of plaintiffs whereas defendant No. 2 is wife of defendant No. 1. They got married in the year 1990. On request of defendants, the plaintiffs allowed them to stay on the ground floor of the suit property consisting of two rooms along with the kitchen and bathroom as lessees with an expectation that they would take care of them. But the defendants have always misbehaved and abused the plaintiffs. They even levelled false allegations and have made complaints to the police against the plaintiffs, as a result of which they have defamed their public image and caused great embarrassment and shock to them. The plaintiffs have averred in the plaint that the appellant/defendant No. 2 had attacked, threatened and abused them on the pretext of implicating them in a false case of outraging her modesty and dowry. Defendant No. 1, who is in the habit of drinking and intoxication remained a mute spectator throughout and at occasions he even gave beatings to the plaintiffs. On 18.5.2014, the plaintiffs had asked the defendants to vacate their house, but they did not vacate the same. Rather, defendant No. 2 had threatened them that she would vacate the house only if a separate house in her name is purchased by them (i.e. by the plaintiffs). In this manner, the plaintiffs are not able to use the portion of the house in their possession. Accordingly, the plaintiffs issued a legal notice to the defendants asking them to vacate the premises and to terminate the license, but still the house was not vacated. Since the defendants have refused to accept the claim of the plaintiffs to vacate the premises, hence the present suit has been filed.

2. Upon notice, the defendants appeared and filed their written statement. They have taken preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the suit, suppressing the material facts, locus standi of the plaintiffs and estoppel. However, on merits, it was submitted that the suit property was purchased by the plaintiffs after selling the ancestral property in which the defendants also had a right. The fact regarding marriage of the defendants and their possession on the ground floor has however duly been admitted.

3. The replication was filed by the plaintiffs in which the contents of the written statements were denied and that of the plaint were reiterated.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

"(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP

(2) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD

(3) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?