Back
2016 Supreme(UK) 308
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
U.C. Dhyani, J.
Sardar Gurucharan Singh Makkad & Another - Petitioners
Versus
Jasminder Singh Makkad & Another - Respondents
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1987 of 2016
Decided On : 20-07-2016
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Mr. Ankur Sharma
For the Respondents: Mr. Piyush Garg, Mr. I.P. Kohli
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reasoned judicial decisions and the interpretation of the definitions of 'domestic relationship' and 'shared household' under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Headnote:
Judicial Determination - Property Dispute - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Section 2(f), Section 2(s)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a civil suit against their son and daughter-in-law for retaining possession of their house. The suit was for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants to restrain them from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs in the suit property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order was unreasoned and could not sustain in the eye of the law. The court set aside the order and remitted the matter to the District Judge to pass a reasoned order after hearing the counsel for the parties.
Issues: The main issue was the possession of the property and the right of the plaintiffs to restrain the defendants from interfering in their possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of a reasoned judicial decision and highlighted the need for proper reasoning in judicial orders. The court also referred to the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and discussed the definitions of 'domestic relationship' and 'shared household' under Section 2(f) and Section 2(s) of the Act.
Final Decision: The court decided to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the District Judge for a reasoned order. The parties were directed to appear before the 4th Additional District Judge for further proceedings.
U.C. Dhyani, J.
By means of present writ petition, the petitioners seek following relief, among others:-
“Issue a suitable order or direction to setting aside impugned order dated 13.7.2016 passed by District Judge, Dehradun in Misc. Civil Appeal no. 52 of 2016 (Annexure no. 6).”
2. It is a strange case in which the parents have filed a civil suit against their son and their daughter in law for retaining possession of their house. Plaintiffs (petitioners herein) filed a civil suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants (respondents herein). Defendant no. 1 is the son of the petitioners/plaintiffs and defendant no. 2 is the daughter in law of the plaintiffs/petitioners.
3. The suit was filed on 27.6.2016 for restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs in the suit property in any way. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), vide order dated 27.6.2016, fixed 11.7.2016 for disposal of temporary injunction application and objections thereon, and in the meanwhile restrained the son and daughter in law of the plaintiffs-parents from interfering in their property.
4. The relationship between the plaintiffs and defendants is admitted. It was stated in the plaint that the plaintiffs executed a will in favour of their elder son and married daughter. As soon as the defendants came to know about the said will, they tried to encroach upon the house, which belongs to the plaintiffs.
5. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that it is a self acquired property.
6. Defendant no. 1 is stated to be living at 9, Ugra Road, Dalanwala, Dehradun. The address of the daughter in law-defendant no. 2 is shown as Ward no. 5, Balwant Colony, Kichha, Udham Singh Nagar.
7. On 12.7.016, the defendant-respondent filed objections to application under Order 39 Rule 1&2 CPC along with written statement. They also prayed for vacating the ad interim stay order. On 13.7.2016, Misc. Civil Appeal was filed by respondent no. 2 against the order dated 27.6.2016.
8. Vide order dated 13.7.2016, which is under challenge before this Court, the District Judge directed that the Misc. Civil Appeal be registered, notice be issued to the respondents, Misc. Civil Appeal be listed for hearing on 18.7.2016 and directed that the effect and operation of order dated 27.6.2016 is stayed upto 18.7.2016.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the State of Uttaranchal & ant. vs. Sunil Kumar Vaish & ors, reported in 2011 (2) U.D. 143. It has been observed in the said decision that:-
“15. Judicial determination has to be seen as an outcome of a reasoned process of adjudication initiated and documented by a party based, on mainly events which happened in the past. Courts’ clear reasoning and analysis are basic requirements in a judicial determination when parties demand it so that they can administer justice justly and correctly, in relation to the findings on law and facts. Judicial decision must be perceived by the parties and by the society at large, as being the result of a correct and proper application of legal rules, proper evaluation of the evidence adduced and application of legal procedure. The parties should be convinced that their case has been properly considered and decided. Judicial decisions must in principle be reasoned and the quality of a judicial decision depends principally on the quality of its reasoning. Proper reasoning is an imperative necessity which should not be sacrificed for expediency. The statement of reasons not only makes the decision easier for the parties to understand and many a times such decisions would be accepted with respect. The requirement of providing reasons obliges the judge to respond to the parties’ submissions and to specify the points that justify the decision and make it lawful and it enables the society to understand the functioning of the judicial system and it also enhances the faith and confide
