IN THE COURT OF SH. VIPIN KHARB, ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGECUMJUDGE, SMALL CAUSES COURTCUMGUARDIAN JUDGE,
NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
Suit No. 59991/16
W/o Sh. Yashoda Nandan
R/o T308 (West side) Prem NagarII,
Near Saraswati Model School
Kirari Extension, Delhi
(1) Sh. Madan Lal @ Ram Vilas
S/o Sh. Yashoda Nandan
(2) Smt. Lalitesh,
W/o Sh. Madan Lal
Both R/o R/o T308 (East side) Pem NagarII,
Near Saraswati Model School
Kirari Extension, Delhi
Date of Institution: 17.08.2009
Date on which judgment was reserved: 16.08.2019
Date of pronouncing judgment: 26.08.2019
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUCTION
Brief facts of the plaint in the nutshell are that the plaintiff alongwith her
family members is residing at plot measuring 120 sq. yds out of khasra No.
1036, situated in the area of Kirari Suleman Nagar, abadi known as Prem
NagarII now known as H. No. T308, Prem NagarII, near Saraswati Model
School, Kiari Extension, Delhi (hereinafter referred as the suit property).
Defendant no. 1 is elder son of the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 is wife of
defendant no. 1. In the year 1997, plaintiff purchased the suit property with her
and her husband’s earning and constructed the suit property consisting of six
Suit No. 59991/16 Urmila Vs. Madan Lal 1/8
rooms, one kitchen, latrine, bathroom and staircase. In the year 1998, plaintiff
alongwith her family members including defendant no. 1 started residing in the
aforesaid property and obtained LPG gas connection and telephone connection
in her name. After the marriage of defendant no. 2, with defendant no. 1,
defendant no. 2 also resided in suit property but both the defendants
misbehaved and quarrelled with the plaintiff. After one year of marriage of
defendant no. 1, plaintiff came to know that defendant no. 1 had cheated her
and got the title documents of the suit property executed in his name.
Defendants have been threatening the plaintiff that if she would ever claim any
right over the suit property and raise any question about the title documents of
the suit property, they would evict the plaintiff and her family members from
the suit property. Plaintiff made complaint to the police but no action was
taken. Defendants are also threatening the plaintiff to sell the suit property.
Therefore, present suit is filed by the plaintiff for seeking relief of permanent
injunction whereby defendants be restrained from creating third party interest
in the suit property.
2. Defendants filed their joint written statement in which they stated that there is
no relationship of mother and son between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1
as both belongs to different caste and district. The name of father of defendant
no. 1 is Agnu Lal and not Yashoda Nandan. Defendant no. 1 purchased the suit
property from Bhoomidar Sh. Ram Niwas for Rs. 40,000/ which was to be
paid in installments and on 09.06.1999, Sh. Ram Niwas gave the possession of
the suit property to the defendant no. 1. On 09.06.2003 defendant no. 1 paid
the last installment and Sh. Ram Niwas executed set of documents including
GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit, Will, receipt of the suit property in favour of
the defendant no. 1.
Plaintiff started working as household help of defendant no. 1 in
Suit No. 59991/16 Urmila Vs. Madan Lal 2/8
year 1999 and she was allowed to stay in a room in the suit property but later
on, plaintiff and her family members created emotional relationship with the
defendant no. 1. Plaintiff by creating false evidence obtained gas and
telephone connection at the address of the suit property in order to grab the suit
property. After the marriage of defendant no. 2 with the defendant no. 1,
defendant no. 1 asked plaintiff to vacate the suit property but she avoided it
and filed the present suit. The site plan filed by the plaintiff is not the correct
site plan. The suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.
3. In replication to the written statement of the defendants, plaintiff submitted that
in PAN Card, driving license and voter list the name of the father of defendant
no. 1 is mentioned as Sh. Yashoda Nandan. After his marriage, both the
defendants started creating nuisance and created such a situation that living of
the plaintiff with the defendants under one roof became almost impossible,
then a Panchayat of respectable members of the family and locality was held
on 17.05.2009 wherein the defendant no. 1 executed an undertaking and
admitted in writing that he will pay a sum of Rs. 1,96,500/ to the plaintiff
within two years for the money spend by plaintiff in the construction of the suit
property. The entire amount for purchase and construction of the suit property
was spent by the plaintiff and her husband out of their own funds and resources
and defendant no. 1 had not contributed even a single penny. However, the
defendant no. 1 took undue advantage of love and affection showed by the
plaintiff towards defendant no. 1 by getting the title documents of the suit
property executed in his name in collusion with Ram Niwas, the local property
dealer and denied all the averments and suggestion made in the written
4. After completion of pleadings, issues were framed by order dated 15.10.2012
Suit No. 59991/16 Urmila Vs. Madan Lal 3/8
which are as follows:
1. Whether the plaintiff has any interest in the suit property bearing no. T308,
Prem NagarII, near Saraswati Model School, Kirari Extension, Delhi? (OPP)
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction as prayed
5. Thereafter, matter was listed for Plaintiff evidence. Plaintiff examined only
herself as PW1 and filed her affidavit in evidence as Ex. PW1/A and relied
and exhibited the following documents:
(1) Plaint as Ex. PW1/1.
(2) Site plan as Ex. PW1/2.
(3) Copy of telephone bill as Ex. PW1/3 (OSR).
(4) Copy of LPG Gas connection as Mark X and Deexhibited as Ex.
(5) Copy of ration card as Ex. PW1/5 (OSR).
(6) Copy of police report as Mark Y.
In her cross examination, she stated that she purchased the suit property
in year 1994 and at that time she was working in a shoe factory in Tri Nagar at
salary of Rs. 3,000/ per month and she was not having any bank account. She
purchased the said plot from Sh. Ram Niwas for a sum of Rs. 80,000/ and Rs.
3,000/ were enhanced because of late execution of documents. She arranged
the abovesaid amount from the agricultural income as well as her income and
that of her family members. She admitted the fact that suit property was
purchased by the defendant but voluntarily said that the defendant Madan Lal
got the documents executed in his name by playing fraud with her. She
admitted that she did not give birth to defendant Madan Lal but treated him as
her real son. The defendant Madan Lal was taken in adoption by her but she
Suit No. 59991/16 Urmila Vs. Madan Lal 4/8
do not have any document in this regard. She was 30 years old and defendant
Madan Lal was 1314 years old and the parents of Madan Lal were not present
at the time of adoption. She spent around two lacs rupees on construction of
the suit property in year 1997 and she borrowed Rs. 50,000/ from her brother.
The electricity meter is in the name of Lt. Madan Lal. She denied that she was
Thereafter, plaintiff evidence was closed.
6. Defendant no. 2 examined herself as DW1. She tendered her evidence
affidavit as Ex. DW1/A.
In her crossexamination, DW1 deposed that she got married
with defendant no. 1 on 11.05.2005 and she could not say whether the plaintiff
performed all the ceremonies of marriage of defendants being the adopted
mother of the defendant no. 1. The name of the biological father of defendant
no. 1 was Agnu Lal who expired way back when the defendant no. 1 was
minor child. She admitted that the daughters of plaintiff used to celebrate
the festival of Ratkhi, Bhai Duj with her husband as sisters and brother. She
further admitted that the plaintiff and her husband used to behave as her
mother in law and father in law respectively being the ‘Dharam Parents’ of her
deceased husband. The suit property constructed over the plot of 120 sq. yds
only upto ground floor and portion of around 70 sq. yds in the suit property is
in her occupation and the remaining portion upto around 50 sq. yds is in the
possession of plaintiff and her family members. Her husband had purchased
the property in question in the year 1999 and the age of her husband at that
time was around 20 years and he was working in one private firm M/s Richa
Export. She had not placed on record any document to show that her husband
was working in M/s Richa Emport but she could produce the same. She
admitted that the name of her husband is shown as Madan Lal in the Ex.
Suit No. 59991/16 Urmila Vs. Madan Lal 5/8
PW1/5 i.e. the copy of the Ration Card. She voluntarily deposed that the name
of husband was Ram Vilas.
She denied that the name of her husband was Madan Lal as well
as he was also known as Ram Vilas. She did not know in which name the PAN
Card of her husband was issued. She admitted that none of these documents
were placed by on judicial record.
Thereafter, defendant evidence was closed.
7. Final arguments heard. Case file perused.
Issue wise finding.
Issue No. 1. : Whether the plaintiff has any interest in the suit property
bearing no. T308, Prem NagarII, near Saraswati Model
School, Kirari Extension, Delhi? (OPP)
8. The onus to prove this issue lies on the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, she
had purchased the suit property from Sh. Ram Niwas for a sum of Rs. 80,000/
but defendant no. 1 by fraud got the documents executed in his name from the
seller. So, it is admitted by the plaintiff that documents of the suit property are
in the name of defendant no. 1 and she has no document in support of her
ownership of suit property. Till date, plaintiff has not sought cancellation of
documents of suit property in favour of defendant no. 1 on the ground of fraud,
therefore, documents of suit property in favour of defendant no. 1 are not
challenged and are valid as on date. Therefore, defendant no. 1 has title
documents of suit property in his favour, whereas plaintiff has no documents of
suit property in her favour.
9. During the trial of the case, defendant no. 1 expired intestate, therefore all his
Suit No. 59991/16 Urmila Vs. Madan Lal 6/8
legal heirs have right in the suit property. As per the plaintiff, defendant no. 1
was not her natural son but a adopted son. But to prove the adoption, plaintiff
did not produce any adoption deed and further failed to lead any evidence to
show any customary adoption of defendant no. 1 by plaintiff. It is admitted by
plaintiff that there was age difference of only 16 to 17 years between plaintiff
and defendant no. 1 and as per the section 11 (iv) of Hindu Adoption and
SectionMaintenance Act, 1956, there should be age difference of 21 years between
female and male adopted person for a valid adoption. As age difference
between plaintiff being a female and defendant no. 1 being a male should be
minimum of 21 years but their age difference only 16 to 17 years, therefore,
even if there was any customary adoption of defendant no. 1 by the plaintiff
even then same is not a valid adoption. So, defendant no. 1 was neither natural
son of plaintiff nor adopted son of plaintiff, therefore, plaintiff has no right in
the suit property which belongs to the deceased defendant no. 1.
10.However, the plaintiff have only produced the copy of telephone bill Ex.
PW1/3 and the copy of the LPG gas connection (Mark X) in her name at te
address of the suit property. These documents only shows that plaintiff is
staying at the suit property since long and same is also admitted by the
defendants. The documents adduced by the plaintiff i.e. LPG gas connection
and telephone connection are not enough to support the title of the plaintiff in
the suit property and can only prove her settled possession. The law will come
to the aid of a person in peaceful and settled possession by injuncting even a
rightful owner from using force or taking law in his own hands. It is the settled
possession or effective possession of a person without title which would entitle
him to protect his possession even as against the true owner. The concept of
settled possession and the right of the possessor to protect his possession
against the owner has come to be settled by a catena of decisions. Illustratively,
Suit No. 59991/16 Urmila Vs. Madan Lal 7/8
Court may refer to Munish Ram and Ors, Vs. Delhi Administration (1968) 2
SCR 455, Puran Singh and Ors. Vs. The State of Punjab (1975) 4 SCC 518
and Ram Rattan and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1977) 1 SCC.
After having considered meticulously the fact and the
circumstances of the case and the evidence adduced, the Court is hereby
concludes that the plaintiff has no ownership right or any other right in the suit
property except the right to protect her possessory right in the suit property that
to not to be dispossessed without following due process of law. Therefore,
issue no. 1 is decided accordingly.
Issue No. 2 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent
injunction as prayed for? (OPP)
11.The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff and as discussed above,
plaintiff has failed to show any ownership right over the suit property,
therefore, she has no right to stop defendants from transferring or creating or
alienating suit property in favour of third person, therefore, issue no. 2 is
decided against the plaintiff.
In view of the abovesaid findings, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
No order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room. signed by
Announced in the open Court (Vipin Kharb)
on day of 26th August, 2019 Additional Senior Civil Judge cum Judge,
Small Causes Court cum Guardian Judge,
NorthWest District, Rohini, Delhi.
Suit No. 59991/16 Urmila Vs. Madan Lal 8/8