MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

Domestic violence, Dowry laws misused to harass elderly

IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE­
II (CENTRAL):TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI

CS No. 363/13
Unique Case ID No.: 02401C0575722010

Ganga Sharan Tripathi
S/o Late Sh. Shiv Bali Tripathi
R/o N­31/15­E­7, Ground Floor,
Hardev Nagar, Jharoda,Delhi­110084. ………Plaintiff

Versus

1. Arvind Tripathi
S/o Sh. Ganga Sharan Tripathi
R/o N­31/15­E­7, 1st Floor,
Hardev Nagar, Jharoda,Delhi­110084.

2. Bindu Tripathi
W/o Sh. Arvind Tripathi
N­31/15­E­7, 1st Floor,
Hardev Nagar, Jharoda, Delhi­110084. …….. Defendant

Date of Insitution: 16.12.2010
Arguments heard on: 18.2.2015
Date of Decision: 21.2.2015

JUDGMENT (Oral):
(1) This suit has been filed by the plaintiff Ganga Saran Tripathi against the defendants who are his son and daughter in law seeking a decree of possession in respect of the suit property measuring 50 Sq. Yds. out of Khasra No.31/15 built upto first floor situated in the area of Jharoda Mazra, Burari in the colony known as Hardev Nagar, Delhi and further directions to restrain their employees, agents, servants, relatives, legal heirs and representatives etc. from not to create any third party interest or selling or construction or transfer to any person the suit property. Case of the plaintiff:

(2) The case of the plaintiff Ganga Sharan Tripathi is that he is a senior citizen aged about 73 years suffering from various ailments such as cardiac problem and diabetes and the defendants are his son and daughter in law. According to the plaintiff, on 17.12.2002 the plaintiff has purchased the property measuring 50 Sq. Yds. out of Khasra No.31/15 situated in the area of Jharoda Mazra, Burari in the colony known as Hardev Nagar, Delhi built upto first floor through registered General Power of Attorney with consideration amount of Rs.61,000/­ (Rupees Sixty One Thousand only) from his hard earned money. It is pleaded by the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 Arvind Tripathi is his son and the defendant No.2 Ms. Bindu Tripathi is his daughter­in­law and he had allowed them to reside on the first floor of the property in such capacity. According to the plaintiff, everything was going smoothly but from the last one year or so the attitude of the defendants No.1 and 2 suddenly changed towards him and his daughter and they started harassing the plaintiff without any rhyme and reason by picking up quarrel on petty matters. Whenever the plaintiff tried to make them understand and advised them not to do such things as it did not make a good impact on the people of the vicinity, the defendants were adamant upon their behaviour. According to the plaintiff, one day the defendant No.1 in a very threatening manner told the plaintiff that if he (plaintiff) wants to live a peaceful life, he has to transfer his aforesaid property in his name i.e the defendant No.1 on which the plaintiff flatly refused to bow down to these unethical demands of the defendant No.1. It is further pleaded that the defendants after getting negative response to their demand from the plaintiff become more arrogant and started behaving in cruel manner. It is pleaded that one day the defendants no. 1 and 2 crossed their limits, when they again repeated their demand and threatened the plaintiff to fulfill the same or else the defendant No.2 would falsely implicate the plaintiff in some false criminal case regarding the dowry demand and domestic violence on which the plaintiff was totally stunned by such kind of attitude of the defendants, to whom the plaintiff had given shelter in his house.

(3) According to the plaintiff, after getting totally fed up from day to day humiliation from the hands of the defendant No.1 & 2, the plaintiff disowned and debarred the defendant No.1 from his all movable & immovable properties and severed all his relations with him vide Public Notice in Rashtriya Sahara daily Hindi Newspaper on 30.03.2010 and also served him with a legal notice dated 30.03.2010 calling upon him to vacate the suit property within 15 days of the receipt of the notice but the defendants no. 1 and 2 have not complied with the same and they are still unauthorizedly staying in the suit property. It is further pleaded that the defendants after receiving the legal and debarring notice, become more arrogant and aggressive and the defendant No.1 crossed all his limits when he along with two­ three gunda type elements came to the plaintiff and extended threats by saying that “Bhude is property ko mere naam karta hai ya nahi, nahi toh kisi raat tera pata bhi nahi chalega, log siraf itna samjhege ki bhuda heart attack se mar gaya, mera kuch bhi nahi bigdega, tab mujhe kaun rokega is property par kabja karne se”. It is also pleaded that the plaintiff was totally frightened from such kind of threat from such kind of threat from the hands of his own son i.e the defendant No.1 and pursuant to the same the plaintiff also moved a complaint against the defendant No.1 before the SHO of Police Station Burari, Delhi on 24.04.2010. According to the plaintiff, whenever the well wishers of the plaintiff came to him to know about his health, the defendant No.1 used to pick up quarrels with them by saying that “Yeh property meri hai aur mujhse puchey bina koi isme nahin jayega”. It is pleaded that the defendant No.1 is also threatening the plaintiff by saying that “Tune mujhe property se bedakhal kar ke accha nahi kiya budhe, ab dekh is property par main kisi gunde ko bitha doonga jo teri asi­tasi kar dega”. (4) It is pleaded that the cause of action firstly arose when the defendant No.1 in a very threatening manner told the plaintiff that if he (plaintiff) wanted to live a peaceful life then he has to transfer his aforesaid property in his name i.e. defendant No.1; Secondly when the defendant No. 1 & 2 again repeated their demand and threatened the plaintiff to fulfill the same otherwise the defendant No.2 would falsely implicate the plaintiff in some false criminal case regarding the dowry demand and domestic violence; Thirdly on 30.03.2010 when the plaintiff disowned and debarred the defendant No.1 from his all movable & immovable properties and severed all his relations with him vide Public Notice in Rashtriya Sahara daily Hindi Newspaper on 30.03.2010 and also served him with a legal notice dated 30.03.2010 calling upon him to vacate the suit property within 15 days of the receipt of the notice but the defendants did not comply with the same and they are still staying unauthorizedly in the suit property; Fourthly when the defendant No.1 crossed all his limits when he along with 2­3 gunda type elements came to the plaintiff and extended threats to the plaintiff which cause of action is still subsisting and continuing on account of which the plaintiff has filed the present suit. Case of the defendants:

(5) In their written statements the defendants have raised a preliminary objection that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs as the same is based only on wrong facts and grounds. It is pleaded that the plaintiff has filed the luxurious litigations against the defendant with the intention to harass them without any rhyme or reason and in fact, the plaintiff has with ulterior motive and dishonest intentions against the defendants for no fault of theirs, wants to dispossess them from their own house. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit against the defendants as he cannot dispossess his own son and his family members from his own property without any rhyme or reason whereas the defendants have always tried their best to take care of the plaintiff but the attitude of the plaintiff towards the defendants is always indifferent. According to the defendants, each and every allegations leveled in the plaint are nothing but a bundle of white lies and the present suit is not maintainable against the defendants since the defendants are the son and daughter­in­law of the plaintiff and have all right to live in their own house and hence the claim of the plaintiff is illegal, arbitrary and not as per law due to which reason the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be rejected with heavy costs on this ground only. It is pleaded that the plaintiff has not come before this Court with clean hands and has concealed the material facts from this Court that the suit property was purchased and built­up from the joint funds of the plaintiff and defendants but was in the name of plaintiff being the head of the family and now the plaintiff with malafide intention to harass the defendants without any rhyme or reason has filed the present false and frivolous suit.

(6) On merits, the defendants have denied all the allegations made against them. It is pleaded that the defendant No.1 had also paid the share of total sale consideration and hence the defendant No.1 is the co­owner of the suit property. It is further pleaded that the defendants have every right to reside in their house being co­owner of the suit property. They have denied that any incident of threats to the plaintiff had ever taken place and have stated that no such incident had ever taken place as alleged by the plaintiff. According to the defendants the intention of the plaintiff has became dishonest and malafide and he has filed the present false and fabricated suit against the defendants only to harass them. It is also pleaded that the defendants never extended any threats as alleged by the plaintiff and the plaintiff has made allegations with ulterior motive to make some grounds to dispossess the defendants from the suit property, while the defendants being son and daughter­in­law of the plaintiff have every right, title and interest in the suit property and the plaintiff cannot get rid of them in this manner. They have denied each and every allegations made by the plaintiff.

(7) The plaintiff has filed a replication wherein he has reaffirmed what he has earlier stated in the plaint.

ISSUES:

(8) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 15.4.21011 the Ld. Predecessor of this Court has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the possession of the suit property measuring 50 Sq. Yds. and constructed upto first floor, out of Khasra No.31/15 situated in the area of Jharoda Mazra, Burari at Hardev Nagar, Delhi, from the defendants? (OPP)
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction, as prayed? (OPP)
3. Relief.

EVIDENCE:

(9) In order to prove his case the plaintiff Ganga Sharan Tripathi has examined two witnesses whereas the defendants have examined as many as three witnesses.

(10) However, before coming to the testimonies of individual witnesses, the list of witnesses examined by the parties and the documents relied upon by them are hereby put in a tabulated form as under: List of witnesses:

Sr. No. Name of the witness Details
Witnesses of the Plaintiff
1. Ganga Sharan Tripathi (PW1) Plaintiff himself
2. Babloo Kumar (PW2) Daughtsman who has proved having prepared the site plan

Witnesses of the Defendants
3. Arvind Tripathi (DW1) Defendant no.1 himself
4. Raj Kumar Tiwari (DW2) Brother of the defendant no.1 and son of the plaintiff
5. Ram Lagan Dubey (DW3) Maternal uncle/ Mama of the defendant no.1
and brother in law/ Sala of the plaintiff

List of documents relied upon by the parties:

Sr. Exhibit Details of the document Proved by
No. No.
1. PW1/A Copy of Registered General Power of Attorney Ganga Sharan(not disputed by the defendants)Tripathi
2. PW1/B Copy of Slip of Consideration amount of Rs.61,000/­ (not disputed by the defendants)
3. PW1/C Copy of Public Notice
4. PW1/E Photocopy of the complaint dated 24.10.2010
5. PW2/A Site plan of the property in question (not Babloo Kumar disputed by the defendants)

Plaintiff’s Witnesses:

(11) The plaintiff Ganga Sharan Tripathi has examined himself as

PW1 and in his examination in chief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/1, he has corroborated whatever he has earlier stated in the main plaint. He has placed his reliance on the registered General Power of Attorney copy of which is Ex.PW1/A; copy of Slip of consideration amount of Rs.61,000/­ copy of which is Ex.PW1/B; copy of public notice which is Ex.PW1/C and photocopy of complaint dated 24.10.2010 which is Ex.PW1/E. It has been observed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court that there is no document Ex.PW1/D or Ex.PW1/__ (i.e. blank) as mentioned in the affidavit.

(12) In his cross­examination by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant the witness has deposed that he was working with Basti Sugar Mill Company Ltd., at 3 Calavery Lane, Delhi­100007 as a Peon. He has further deposed that at the time of his retirement, his salary was Rs.4,500/­ per month. According to the witness he was retired in the year 2007. He has confirmed that he has two daughters and two sons. He has further deposed that his wife had expired in the year 2007 and prior to that for about 15­16 years she remained ill. He does not remember the name of the person from whom he had purchased the suit property and has voluntarily explained that the name is mentioned in the property documents. The witness has testified that the suit property was purchased by him for Rs. 61,000/­ and the suit property was in the same condition as it is at present except that he got conducted some repair/ renovation for installation of water and electricity meters, in the suit property. He does not remember how much expenses have been incurred by him on the said renovation. He also does not remember the exact dates of quarrel took place between him and the defendants and has voluntarily explained that the copies of complaints are already on record. The witness also does not remember the names of the relatives/ well wishers as mentioned in the affidavit of evidence (para 9) and also does not remember the date of the said incident as mentioned in para no. 9 of his affidavit. He further does not remember as to when he had dispossessed his elder son Raj Kumar from the suit property. He has denied the suggestion that most of the amount for purchase and construction of the suit property was given and spend by the defendant no.1. He has further denied the suggestion that he is intending to give the share of the defendants to his daughters, after selling the suit property and has voluntarily explained that he is not inclined to give any share to anyone. He has further denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely in order to prove his case against the defendants. (13) PW2 Babloo Kumar (Draughtsman) has proved having prepared the site plan Ex.PW2/A. According to the witness, the said site plan is true and correct site plan of the property in question which is shown in red colour in the site plan. He has not been cross­examined by the Ld. Counsel for the defendants.

Defendant’s Evidence:

(14) The defendant Arvind Tripathi has examined himself as DW1 and in his examination in chief by way of affidavit which is Ex.DW1/A he has corroborated what he has earlier stated in the written statement. (15) In his cross­examination by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, he has deposed that he had passed 12th class in the year 2001­02 and his date of birth is 06.05.1975. According to the witness, he was doing home delivery of milk from the year 1989 to 1998 and at that time from this work, his monthly income was about Rs.7000­8000/­. He has further deposed that he had not shown the aforesaid income in any Government Department nor he had filed any document related to his aforesaid income, in this case. The witness has further deposed that from the year 1998 to 2000 he had done the advertising work in partnership of Jitender Bhagel and at that time, he was earning Rs.12,000­15,000/­ per month but it was not shown with any Govt. or private authority. He has further explained that from the year 2000 till now, he is trading in Sangwan Wood and his monthly income is about Rs.15,000­20,000/­ per month which is not being shown by him and his any representative to any government or private authority. The witness has also deposed that he has two bank accounts, one in ICICI Bank, Model Town and another is in SBI Nirankari Colony, Delhi. He has testified that he was married in 2007 and his family members i.e. sister, father and other relatives attended his marriage. He has denied the suggestion that his father and sisters have not spent any single penny in his marriage. The witness has further deposed that the suit property was purchased perhaps in the year 2000 and he had contributed about Rs.5,50,000/­ towards purchase of suit property, which he had arranged by taking loan from his friends and other persons, details of which loan were not taken in writing. He has further testified that he has not filed any document relating to taking loan from his friends and other persons for purchasing the suit property. According to the witness, the suit property was purchased from one property dealer namely Vinay Tyagi. The witness has also deposed that he had given all the payments to his father (plaintiff). He has testified that the suit property was purchased for Rs.2,60,000/­ but in the documents the same was shown that it was purchased for Rs.60,000/­ and there is no document on record relating to these facts. He has denied the suggestion that he has not contributed anything for the purchase of the suit property and mostly his father had spent all the money for purchasing the suit property. According to the witness, since his birth, he is residing with his parents and since 2009, he has estranged relations with his parents. He has denied that after his marriage his relations become estranged with his father (plaintiff). He has further denied that suit property is in the name of his father and his father is real owner of the suit property.

(16) DW2 Raj Kumar Tiwari is the brother of the defendant no.1 and son of the plaintiff. He has in his examination in chief by way of affidavit which is Ex.DW2/A has stated that the defendant has spent most of the share to purchase and build up the suit property which was purchased in the name of the plaintiff by the joint fund. According to him, the plaintiff wants to sell the property in question to give the entire share to his daughters. He has further stated that his father i.e. the plaintiff was working with a private company and had retired in 2004 and at that time he was drawing a salary of Rs.4,500/­ per month. According to the witness, the wife of the plaintiff i.e. his mother was suffering from heart disease and had expired in 2006.

(17) In his cross­examination by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff the witness has deposed that he is residing at Shahibabad, Gaziabad, Uttar Pradesh for the last about four years and prior to that, he was residing at Khasra No. 31/15, Jharoda Mazra, Hardev Nagar, Delhi. He has admitted that the suit property is in the name of the plaintiff who is the owner of the same. He has also admitted that some litigations are pending between his father and his (witness’s) younger brother and the same have been filed by his younger brother against his father. He is not aware of the fate of said litigations. He is not aware if there was any written document/ transaction between the plaintiff and his younger brother. He has testified that at the time of filing of the said litigation and even prior to the same, he had tried his best to make both his father and the younger brother understand. He has denied the suggestion that his younger brother did not stop from filing the ligations against his father and has voluntarily explained that his father was adamant and was not agreeing for any settlement. He is unable to tell who had filed the litigation first. According to the witness, he is working privately and is earning a sum of Rs.9,500/­. He has further deposed that he has three children and he along with his family residing at Shahibabad in a rented accommodation. He has denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely in order to help his younger brother. (18) DW3 Ramlagan Dubey is the brother in law (Sala) of the plaintiff and maternal uncle of the defendant no.1 Arvind Tripathi. He has in his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex.DW3/A has stated that the defendant no.1 had spent most of the share to purchase and build up the suit property which was purchased in the name of the plaintiff through a joint fund. According to him, the plaintiff wants to sell the property in question to give the entire share to his daughters. He has further stated that the plaintiff was working with a private company and had retired in 2004 and at that time he was drawing a salary of Rs.4,500/­ per month. (19) In his cross­examination by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, the witness has admitted that his sister had died in the year 2006 on the eve of Raksha Bandhan while they were returning to her matrimonial house at Delhi, from their house at Faridabad. According to the witness, his sister remained ill before her death and she stayed at his house, about one week before returning to her matrimonial house with him. He does not remember the exact date of dispute arose between the parties. He is not aware if the first litigation was filed by the defendant against the plaintiff. According to him, he had tried to make both the parties understand but to no avail. He has also deposed that no money transaction even took place between the parties in his presence. He has testified that the documents regarding purchase of property at Hardev Nagar i.e. the suit property were prepared in his presence. According to the witness, he had given Rs. 1,00,000/­ to his sister for purchasing the property in question but no written document was prepared regarding the said amount of Rs. One lac till date. He has admitted that he has not mentioned the fact of giving Rs. One Lac to his sister, in his affidavit of evidence Ex.DW3/A. He has denied the suggestion that he had never given Rs. One Lac to his sister for purchase of the suit property. He has admitted that no document regarding the suit property bears his signatures as a witness. He does not remember from whom or through which property dealer, the suit property was purchased. He also does not remember the exact amount of purchase of the suit property. He has denied the suggestion that after the death of his sister he had never visited the house of the plaintiff or that he has filed his affidavit of evidence without going through the contents of the same. FINDINGS:

(20) I have heard the arguments advanced before me and the written memorandum of arguments filed on behalf of the plaintiff. My findings on the various issues are as under:

Issue No.1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the possession of the suit property measuring 50 Sq. Yds. and constructed upto first floor, out of Khasra No.31/15 situated in the area of Jharoda Mazra, Burari at Hardev Nagar, Delhi, from the defendants?

Issue No.2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction, as prayed?

(21) Both the issues no. 1 and 2 are taken up together involving common discussion. Onus of proving both the issues was upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff Ganga Sharan Tripathi has examined himself as PW1 and in his examination in chief he has corroborated what he has pleaded in his plaint in toto. He has proved the registered General Power of Attorney copy of which is Ex.PW1/A; copy of Slip of consideration amount of Rs.61,000/­ copy of which is Ex.PW1/B; copy of public notice which is Ex.PW1/C and photocopy of complaint dated 24.10.2010 against the defendant sent to the SHO PS Burari which is Ex.PW1/E. The plaintiff has also examined the Draughtsman Babloo Kumar as PW2 who has proved the site plan which is Ex.PW2/A and the position of the built up portions have not been disputed. The defendant no.1 Arvind Tripathi has examined himself as his own witness as DW1 wherein he has corroborated what he has earlier stated in the written statement. He has admitted that property in question is in the name of his father but according to him, he had made major contributions at the time of purchase and construction of the property. According to him, at the time of purchase of the property and its construction the plaintiff was working in a private company and was drawing a salary of Rs.4,500/­ per month. The defendants have also examined his Maternal Uncle/ Mama Ramlagan Dubey as DW3 who has in his examination in chief corroborated what has been stated by the defendant no.1 Arvind Tripathi and according to his oral testimony it is the defendant no.1 who has given major chunk of the financial contribution for purchase of the property in question. Raj Kumar Tiwari (DW2) is the real brother of the defendant Arvind Tripathi and son of the plaintiff. He too has similarly stated that defendant no.1 has made the major financial contribution in purchasing the property in question. However, both Raj Kumar Tiwari (DW2) and Ramlagan Dubey (DW3) as also the defendant no.1 Arvind Tripathi have admitted that the property in question is in the name of the plaintiff. In fact Raj Kumar Tiwari (DW2) has admitted that some litigations are pending between his father and the defendant no.1 which have been filed by his younger brother but he is not aware of the fate of the same. He has stated that he had intervened on many occasions to advise both his brother and father but both are adamant and did not agree for any settlement. He is unable to tell as to who had filed the litigation first and has stated that in so far as he is concerned, he has been working privately and was earing Rs.9,500/­ per month.

(22) Ramlagan Dubey (DW3) has admitted in his cross­examination that the property in question is in the name of the plaintiff. He has also admitted that there are various disputes pending between the defendant no. 1 and the plaintiff but he is unable to admit or deny if the disputes between the parties arose in the year 2010. He is not aware if the first litigation was filed by the defendant against the plaintiff and has stated that he had tried to advise both the parties but failed to convince them. According to him, the documents relating to the property in question at Hardev Nagar were prepared in his presence. He has stated that he had given Rs. One lac to his sister (i.e. wife of the plaintiff) for purchasing the suit property but no document was prepared relating to Rs. One lacs. Here, I may observe that it is for the first time in the cross­examination that the witness Ramlagan Dubey has come up with this new story of having given Rs. One lacs his sister i.e. wife of the plaintiff. He has admitted that in his affidavit of evidence which is Ex.DW2/A he has not mentioned about this fact at all. He has also admitted that no document relating the suit property bears his signatures. He also does not remember from whom or through which property dealer the suit property was purchased. He also does not remember the exact amount for which the suit property was purchased. (23) At the very Outset I may observe that there is no dispute with regard to the identity of the property in question which is measuring 50 Sq. Yds. out of Khasra No.31/15 situated in the area of Jharoda Mazra, Burari in the colony known as Hardev Nagar, Delhi and as regards the correctness of the site plan Ex.PW2/A.

(24) Secondly it is also not disputed, rather on the contrary, it is admitted by the defendants that the suit property was purchased in the name of the plaintiff Ganga Sharan Tripathi and till date continues to be in his name. The plaintiff on his part in order to prove the same has placed on record the copy of the registered General Power of Attorney which is Ex.PW1/A which again confirms that he is the owner of the property in question.

(25) Thirdly the only dispute raised by the defendants is with regard to the exclusive right of the plaintiff to deal with the property. According to the defendant no.1 Arvind Tripathi he had made major contributions of funds during the purchase of the property but the property was purchased in the name of the plaintiff keeping in view the close relationship between them as the plaintiff was his father. While on the one hand the plaintiff has examined himself to prove his version and also relied upon the documents of purchase of the property, whereas on the other hand the defendant has examined himself as well as his brother Raj Kumar and maternal uncle/ mama Ram Lagan Dubey to establish his version that he has made major contribution of finances for purchase of the property. (26) Fourthly coming to the testimony of Ram Lagan Dubey (DW3) who is the maternal uncle of the defendant no.1 and the brother in law/ sala of the plaintiff, his testimony does not inspire confidence because he has introduced a new story in the Court during his cross­examination that he i.e. Ramlagan Dubey had also contributed Rupees One Lac. He has deposed that he had paid Rs. One lacs to his deceased sister i.e. the wife of the plaintiff for enabling the purchase of the property in question. Ramlagan Dubey (DW3) has himself admitted that no document relating to handing over of the amount has been prepared. It is difficult to believe this version of Ramlagan Dubey which he has introduced for the first time in his cross­examination, not only because it is a total improvement over the case of the defendants but also because Ramlagan Dubey has not placed before this Court any record to show the source of Rs. One lacs which he alleges he had given to his sister i.e. the wife of the plaintiff Ganga Sharan Tripathi. The relevant portion of his testimony is as under:

….. I had given Rs. One lac for purchasing the said property to my sister. No written document was prepared regarding the said amount of Rs. One lac, till date…..

(27) Even otherwise, I am sure in case if he would have given this money to the plaintiff through his sister (i.e. wife of the plaintiff), his nephews including the defendant no.1 would have been aware of the same and he would have mentioned this fact in his affidavit of examination in chief which he did not do.

(28) Fifthly Ramlagan Dubey (DW3) also claims that he had accompanied the plaintiff to the office of the Sub Registrar at the time of purchase of the property and was aware that the defendant had contributed to the purchase of the property. This again is not believable because had that been so, the witness Ram Lagan Dubey would have been aware of the details of the sale i.e. name of the seller etc. and even the documents of sale­purchase of property would be having his signatures as a witness, which is not the case. The relevant portion of his testimony is as under:

“….. No money transaction even took place between the parties in my presence…..
…. It is correct that no document regarding the suit property bears my signatures as a witness. I do not remember from whom or through which property dealer the suit property was purchased. I do not remember the exact amount of purchase of the suit property…..”

(29) When no money transaction took place in his presence then how could Ram Lagan say that the defendant no.1 had contributed towards the purchase of the house. Further, the absence of his signatures on the documents of sale­purchase of the property, raises a serious question mark on his presence before the Sub Registrar at the time of the purchase of this property as claimed by Ram Lagan.

(30) Sixthly coming next to the testimony of Raj Kumar Tiwari (DW2) who is the elder son of the plaintiff and the elder brother of the defendant no.1, he in his oral testimony stated that the defendant no.1 Arvind Tripathi had given money to his father Ganga Sharan Tripathi. His entire statement is vague and non specific. How much amount was given? When was the amount given and where? I may observe that Raj Kumar Tiwari (DW2) does not claim that he was present at the time of the alleged transaction of sale­purchase. How then, did he come to know of who contributed and how much? There are questions to which no explanation is forthcoming.

(31) Seventhly the defendant no.1 Arvind has seriously contradicted himself in many ways. According to him, the property in question was purchased from the property dealer Vinay Tyagi for a consideration amount of Rs.2,60,000/­ and that too in the year 2000. However, the documents relating to purchase of the property in question reveals that it was purchased in the year 2002 and not in the year 2000 and further the consideration amount was Rs.61,000/­. The relevant portion of the cross­examination of Arvind Tripathi (DW1) is reproduced as under:

“……. The suit property was purchased perhaps in the year 2000. I have contributed about 5,50,000/­ towards purchase of suit property, which I have arranged by taking loan from my friends and other persons were not in written and I have not filed any document relating to taking loan from my friends and other persons for purchasing the suit property. The suit property was purchased from one property dealer Vinay Tyagi. I have given all the payments to my father (plaintiff). The suit property was purchased for Rs. 2,60,000/­. There is no document on record relating to these facts…..”

(32) It is difficult to believe that any person would give a huge loan to the defendant no.1 of Rs.5,50,000/­ without any documentation. I find this statement of defendant no.1 unbelievable and non probable, not only because Arvind Tripathi is totally vague and non specific on the names of his friends who had given him this loan but also because initially as per his own version (in the cross­examination) he had claimed that the property in question was purchased from the joint funds of the family but further again in his cross­examination he claimed that this was his own amount since at the relevant time he was self employed and earning while distributing milk and earned about Rs.7,000/­ to Rs.8,000/­ per month form distribution of milk during the period 1989 to 1998 (i.e. at a time when he, as per his own version, was studying in school) which is again a wild averment which is non specific and vague with no backing from any document. Later again when Arvind Tripathi feels cornered, he introduces a new case of borrowing Rs.5,50,000/­ from his friends whose details he is unable to give. The entire version put to by him is unbelievable. (33) Eighthly neither the defendant no.1 Arvind Tripathi (DW1) nor his brother Raj Kumar Tiwari (DW2) have given any specific amount which they claim was given to the plaintiff Ganga Sharan Tripathi and also the source of the said amount. The pleadings of the defendant no.1 in his written statement and in also in his statement before the Court that he had made major contribution towards the purchase of the property in question are totally vague and non specific. How much was the amount out of the total consideration which the defendant no.1 had contributed, has not been specified. In his affidavit of evidence, he has simply deposed that he had contributed about Rs.5,50,000/­ towards purchase of suit property, which he had arranged by taking a loan from his friends and other persons, details of which loan were not taken in writing. No details including the bank account has been has been provided nor the name of the friends from whom the defendant no.1 had taken the loan has been specified. However, during his examination the defendant no.1 has not specified the definite source of this amount i.e. Rs.5,50,000/­ nor has he placed on record any document to show that at the time of purchase of the property in question, he was working anywhere or how much he was earning at the relevant point of time. The relevant portion of the cross­examination of Arvind Tripathi (DW1) is as under:

“….. I have passed 12th class in the year 2001­02….. ……I have not shown the aforesaid income in any government department and I have not filed any document related to my aforesaid income in this case…..”

(34) It is the case of the defendant no. 1 that the suit property had been purchased in the year 2000 i.e. at the time when as per his own version was still in school and further as per the version of the defendant no.1 he had contributed Rs.5,50,000/­ by taking loans from his friends. I may note that as per the documentary record the property was purchased in the year 2002 and not 2000 as is being claimed by the defendant no.1. Further, in the court he has not filed any document to substantiate his claim regarding loan nor he has disclosed the names of the persons from whom he had taken the loan nor the details of the said loan has been placed on record.

(35) Ninethly the defendant no.1 Arvind Tripathi has admitted that his relationship with the plaintiff was not cordial and in his cross­ examination he has specifically mentioned that he had estranged relations with his father, which fact has been duly admitted by his brother i.e. Raj Kumar Tiwari (DW2) and his maternal uncle/ Mama Ramlagan Dubey (DW3). The relevant portion of cross­-examination of Raj Kumar Tiwari (DW2) is reproduced as under:

“…. It is correct that some litigation are pending between my father and my younger brother and the same have been filed by my younger brother against my father/ plaintiff…..”

(36) Further, the relevant portion of the cross­examination of Ramlagan Dubey (DW3) is as under:

“…… I do not know if the first litigation was filed by the defendant against the plaintiff…”

(37) Under the given circumstances, when the relationship between the parties itself is non cordial and estranged, it is difficult to rely upon the oral version of these witnesses particularly when they contradict themselves on material aspects and their versions find no confirmation from any authentic documentary record.

(38) Tenthly it is evident from the record that at the time when the suit property was purchased the plaintiff Ganga Sharan Tripathi was working in Basti Sugar Mill Company Ltd., at 3 Calavery Lane, Delhi­100007 as a Peon and according to him he had purchased the property in question from his own sources. On the other hand in so far as the defendant no.1 Arvind Tripathi is concerned he has contradicted himself in many ways. Initially in his pleadings he claimed that the property in question was purchased out of the family funds, whereas in his cross­examination he claimed that he was doing the business of distribution of milk and had contributed out of his earnings. In the same cross­examination he took a turn and claimed that he had taken loan from his friends. His version does not find favour with this Court. Also, if the defendant no.1 Arvind Tripathi would have contributed any amount towards the purchase of the property, his presence would have been shown in any of the documents relating to purchase of the property which is not the case.

(39) Lastly I may observe that the plaintiff Ganga Sharan Tripathi is the owner of the property in question and the defendant no.1 Arvind Trhiathi is his son whereas the defendant no.2 Smt. Bindu Tripathi is his daughter in law. I may observe that the property in question is self acquired property of Ganga Sharan Tripathi and the defendant no.1 Arvind Tripathi cannot claim an independent right over the same. He is residing in the property as a permissive user/ licensee of the plaintiff keeping in view the close relationship the defendant no.1 being the son of the plaintiff and is continued to be in possession of the suit property. I may specifically mention that in so far as the cross­examination of Ganga Sharan Tripathi (PW1) is concerned, the defendant has not cross­examined him on this aspect nor controverted this aspect that the property in question is the self acquired property of the plaintiff. Further on the aspect of threats issued to the plaintiff by the defendants is concerned, the plaintiff has specifically in his evidence by way of affidavit stated that when he refused to transfer the property in question in the name of defendant no.1, both the defendants threatened him that the defendant No.2 would falsely implicate him in some false criminal case regarding the dowry demand and domestic violence. Further, the plaintiff has proved that he had disowned and debarred the defendant No.1 from his all movable & immovable properties and severed all his relations with him vide Public Notice in Rashtriya Sahara daily Hindi Newspaper on 30.03.2010 and also served him with a legal notice dated 30.03.2010 calling upon him to vacate the suit property within 15 days of the receipt of the notice, which establishes that the license of the defendants to stay in the premises has been terminated by the plaintiff. Further, the plaintiff Ganga Sharan has in his oral testimony specifically alleged that after receiving the legal and debarring notice, the defendants become more arrogant and aggressive and the defendant No.1 along with two­ three gunda type elements came to the plaintiff and extended threats by saying that “Bhude is property ko mere naam karta hai ya nahi, nahi toh kisi raat tera pata bhi nahi chalega, log siraf itna samjhege ki bhuda heart attack se mar gaya, mera kuch bhi nahi bigdega, tab mujhe kaun rokega is property par kabja karne se” pursuant to which the plaintiff had also filed a complaint before the SHO of Police Station Burari, Delhi on 24.04.2010 which is Ex.PW1/E. He has proved that whenever his well wishers come to call up him or inquire about his health, the defendant No.1 picks up quarrels with them by saying that “Yeh property meri hai aur mujhse puchey bina koi isme nahin jayega”. He has also proved that the defendants threaten him by saying that “Tune mujhe property se bedakhal kar ke accha nahi kiya budhe, ab dekh is property par main kisi gunde ko bitha doonga jo teri asi­tasi kar dega”. The plaintiff Ganga Sharan Tripathi (PW1) has not been cross­examined by the defendants on these aspects at all, which have therefore gone unrebutted and uncontroverted.

(40) This being the background, I hereby hold that the plaintiff Ganga Sharan Tripathi has been able to prove that he is the owner of the property in question measuring 50 Sq. Yds. out of Khasra No.31/15 situated in the area of Jharoda Mazra, Burari in the colony known as Hardev Nagar, Delhi. He has proved that the defendant no.1 and 2 have been residing in this property in their capacity being his son and daughter in law as licensee’s and on account of their repeated misbehaviour, harassment and misconduct, he had terminated this license/ permission so given to his son and daughter in law to stay in the suit premises. Also, on the grounds raised by the plaintiff that the defendants have threatened to create a third party interest in the suit property, there is no cross­ examination of the plaintiff (PW1) on the aspect and this aspect has gone unrebutted and uncontroverted, thereby entitling the plaintiff to this relief. (41) Both the issue No.1 and 2 are accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff.

Relief:

(42) In view of my above discussion, I hereby hold that the plaintiff Ganga Sharan Tripathi who is the father of the defendant no.1 Arvind Tripathi and father in law of the defendant no.2 Bindu Tripathi, is owner of the property in question measuring 50 Sq. Yds. out of Khasra No.31/15 situated in the area of Jharoda Mazra, Burari in the colony known as Hardev Nagar, Delhi. Further, I hold that the plaintiff Ganga Sharan Tripathi is entitled to the Relief of Possession and Permanent Injunction in respect of the suit property measuring 50 Sq. Yds. out of Khasra No. 31/15 situated in the area of Jharoda Mazra, Burari in the colony known as Hardev Nagar, Delhi as shown in the red colour in the site plan Ex.PW2/A.

FINAL CONCLUSIONS:

(43) A senior citizen who after his retirement has been facing trauma, harassment and humiliation in the hands of his own son and daughter in law (defendants), has been compelled to approach the Courts of law only because he had refused to transfer the suit property in the names of his son and daughter in law despite their pressure for which not only has he been abused, rebuked and humiliated with, but also accused of favouring his daughters and threatened with legal coercive penal action under the stringent Dowry Laws. The defendants have also been raising serious objections to the friends, relatives and well­wishers of Ganga Sharan Tripathi visiting him in his property and have frequently humiliated him in their presence. The defendants i.e. his son and daughter in law have been alleging that he wanted to sell this property and give the money to his daughters. It is in this background, that Ganga Sharan has been compelled to seek recourse to law by way of present suit.

(44) Respecting out parents and elders and caring for them is an integral part of our rich Indian Culture and Tradition. It is also a common phenomena in our Indian Society that there are strong reactions and objections by the male members of the families particularly sons whenever the parents think of giving shares in the properties to daughters resulting into misbehaviour with aged parents. We cannot permit our children to be wrapped up with themselves leaving their elderly aged parents to fend for themselves at an age when they need them most. Life is not a ladder but a wheel and takes a full circle. As the wheels of time turns, men wear many names and faces and no one wants to realize the great pattern the wheel weaves. Least we forget that in case if we do not care for our parents at the age they require us, our kids would not care for us. It is said that Wheels of Justice grind slow but exceedingly finely. In case of any misbehavour by the children to elderly parents the Courts of Law would certainly and effectively step in for redressal to stop this inappropriate and illegal conduct, (45) It is in this background and in view of my findings on the various issues I hereby hold that the plaintiff Ganga Saran Tripathi is the owner of the property in question measuring 50 Sq. Yds. out of Khasra No. 31/15 situated in the area of Jharoda Mazra, Burari in the colony known as Hardev Nagar, Delhi and has absolute right to deal with the same, the way he wants. His son Arvind Tripathi and daughter in law Bindu Tripathi i.e. defendant no. 1 and 2 are only the permissive users/ licensee’s in respect of the property in question in such capacity and on account of their misbehavour and misconduct with their father, their license to stay in the suit property has been validly terminated particularly after the plaintiff by way of a public notice, disowned his son Arvind Tripathi and thereafter served a notice to the defendants to vacate the premises in question who failed to do so. Hence, I hold that the plaintiff Ganga Sharan Tripathi is entitled to the Relief of Possession and Permanent Injunction in respect of the suit property measuring 50 Sq. Yds. out of Khasra No.31/15 situated in the area of Jharoda Mazra, Burari in the colony known as Hardev Nagar, Delhi as shown in the red colour in the site plan Ex.PW2/A. In the interest of justice the defendants no.1 and 2 i.e. Arvind Tripathi and Ms. Bindu Tripathi are granted time and shall vacate the property in question and handover the peaceful possession of the same to the plaintiff’s within Three Months from today. Till such time the actual physical possession of the property is handed over to the plaintiff, the defendants shall not sell, construct & transfer the property in question nor they shall create any third party interest in the same.

(46) The suit of the plaintiff is accordingly decreed. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.

(47) File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 21.2.2015 ADJ­II(CENTRAL)/ DELHI

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Important SC/HC Judgements on 498A IPC
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2018 MyNation KnowledgeBase
eXTReMe Tracker
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please to read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registrationJOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307,312, 313,323 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509; and also TEP, RTI etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh