SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt. Bhagirathi vs Rajinder Singh . on 20 March, 2018

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No(s). OF 2018
(Arising out of SLP (C ) No. 17152 of 2015)

SMT. BHAGIRATHI Appellant(s)

VERSUS

RAJINDER SINGH ANR. Respondent(s)

O R D E R

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. The suit bearing No.203 of 1999 (renumbered as 388 of 2014) for

recovery   of   possession   and   damages,   use   and   occupation   charges   and   for

permanent injunction was filed by Ms. Vedwati before the Court of the Senior

Civil Judge, Delhi on 08.08.2014.

4. Late Gopi Chand was the owner of the property No.C­42/2 in Survey

No.585, in the Abadi of village Ghonda Gujran Khadar, presently known as

Gamri   Extension,   Shahdara,   Delhi,   admeasuring   600   sq.   yards,   which   was

purchased by him vide sale deed dated 19.2.1971.  He had sold the portion of

the land measuring 320 sq. yard and retained the remaining portion of 280

sq.   yards   for   himself.     He died  on  01.08.1980  leaving  behind   his  six   legal
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
NEELAM GULATI
Date: 2018.03.28
16:35:34 IST
representatives beside the plaintiff; his two sons, namely; Rajinder Singh and
Reason:

Harish Chand and four daughters, namely; Kamla, Vimla, Neelam, and Rajani.

All  the  four daughters  relinquished their  rights in the property  in favor of
2

mother   Smt.   Vedwati   vide   relinquishment   deed   and   again   registered

relinquishment deed which was executed on 11.4.1996.   Thus, Ms. Vedwati

became the absolute owner of the property in question, which consists of nine

rooms. The Defendant No.1­ Rajinder Singh was allowed to stay in the suit

property as licensee by paying the license fee at the rate of Rs.20/­ per month

to   be   paid   to   the   plaintiff.   Defendant   No.2­   Bhagirathi,   being   the   wife   of

Defendant No.1 continued to stay in the suit property.   The license fee was

not paid by Defendant No.1, hence, notice dated 6.4.1996 was served and the

suit for permanent injunction restraining defendants from creating third party

rights,   from   making   an   alteration   in   the   property   and   restraining   from

disposing of the property in an illegal manner was prayed. In suit, prayer was

made for possession also.

5. The respondent failed to appear before the trial court and the suit

was dismissed initially ex­parte vide judgment dated 18.01.2003 which order

was set aside and the case was remanded to the trial court vide order dated

26.4.2010 by the First Appellate Court.  The defendants were permitted to file

their   written   statement   and   the   suit   was   ordered   to   be   decided  de   novo.

Defendant No.1 never appeared before the court.  Defendant No.2 instead of

filing written statement moved an application under Section 10 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the CPC”) which was dismissed vide order

dated 26.4.2011.  The right of the defendants to file their written statements

was   closed   and   their   defense   was   struck   off,   vide   order   dated   21.5.2011.

Orders in this regard dated 21.5.2011 and 26.4.2011 were challenged in CMM

No.713   of   2011,   which   was   dismissed   by   the   High   Court   of   Delhi   on

18.4.2012.    The review was filed  against the order dated 18.4.2012  in the
3

High Court which was also dismissed on 30.4.2012.

6. Aggrieved thereby the special leave petition was filed in this court

that   too   was   dismissed   on   03.03.2014.     Thus,   the   order   striking   off   the

defense of the defendants attained finality.

The trial court has framed following issues:

“1.   Whether   the  defendants  were  the  licensee  in   the  suit
property under the plaintiff, and if so, whether their license
was duly terminated?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree a possession as
prayed for?

3.   Whether   the   plaintiff   is   entitled   to   a   decree   for
permanent   injunction   as   prayed   for?

4. Whether   the   plaintiff   is   entitled   to   damage/use   and
occupation charges @ Rs.500/­ w.e.f. April 1999 till the date
of filing of the i.e. Rs.1000/­ along with interest @ 24% per
annum   as   prayed   for?

5. Whether   the   plaintiff   is   entitled   to   any   further
damages/use and occupation charges till the vacation of the
suit property and, if so, at what rate?

6.     Relief.”

7. The trial court decreed the suit on 8.8.2014.   First Appeal bearing

RCA   No.26   of   2014   was   filed   before   the   Additional   District   Judge­08,

(Central)   Tis   Hazari   Courts,   Delhi,   that   was   dismissed   on   18.4.2015.     The

second appeal bearing R.S.A. No.192 of 2015 was filed before the High Court

of Delhi at New Delhi, which also met the same fate and hence, the present

appeal has been filed by defendant No.2 ­ Ms. Bhagirathi, the daughter in law.

8. The main question urged by the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant is that by virtue of the provisions under Section 28 of the Hindu
4

Adoption   and   Maintenance   Act,   1956   and   the   provisions   contained   under

Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, there would be charge on the

property even after the relinquishment to the extent of share of the husband

available to the deserted wife and considering the aforesaid provisions, later

on   there   is   an   order   dated   15 th  March   2018   passed   by   the   Family   Court

regarding maintenance in separate proceedings.

9. Learned  counsel  appearing  on   behalf  of  the  aforesaid  respondents

has submitted that finding has been recorded in this regard and no case of

interference is made out.

10. After hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the

opinion   that   whether   there   will   be   charge   on   the   property   after

relinquishment   by   the   husband   in   favour   of   the   mother,   was   the   question

which was not raised in present case and no issue was framed by the trial

court; as such any observation made in the impugned judgment and order by

the trial court, first appellate court or by the High court, in this case, shall not

come in the way of independent proceedings that have been instituted and

the   order   of   maintenance   has   been   passed,   that   would   be   examined

independently.  However, on merits, the finding recorded on aforesaid aspect

are diluted and set aside and shall not be treated as binding for any other

case.  The case involving aforesaid question has to be decided independently.

11. With the aforesaid clarification, we are not inclined to entertain the

appellant as against the order of eviction that has been passed in the present

matter.

5

12.   With   the   aforesaid   observation   and   modification,   the   appeal   stands

disposed of.

…………….J.

(ARUN MISHRA)

…………….J.

(NAVIN SINHA)
NEW DELHI;

MARCH 20, 2018
6

ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.10 SECTION XIV

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 17152/2015

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18-05-2015
in RSA No. 192/2015 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi)

SMT. BHAGIRATHI Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

RAJINDER SINGH ANR. Respondent(s)

Date : 20-03-2018 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Krishan Pal Mavi, AOR
Mr. B.P. Mishra, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Akhil Sachar, Adv.

Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, Adv.

Ms. Jasmine Damkewala, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.

The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed
order.

Pending application, if any, also stand disposed of.

(NEELAM GULATI) (JAGDISH CHANDER)
COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER
(SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE)

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

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

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

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation