SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt. Sudha Miglani vs . Smt. Savitri Devi on 19 March, 2018

Smt. Sudha Miglani Vs. Smt. Savitri Devi
RCA No. 8/18

IN THE COURT OF SHRI TARUN YOGESH
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE­03: SOUTH WEST DISTRICT:
DWARKA COURTS:NEW DELHI 

Regular Civil Appeal No. 8/18
In the matter of:­
Smt. Sudha Miglani
W/o Sh. Amit Miglani
R/o D­2/89, First Floor,
Janak Puri,
New Delhi. …..Appellant

Versus

Smt. Savitri Devi 
W/o Late Sh. N. C. Miglani
R/o D­2/89, Ground Floor,
Janak Puri,
New Delhi. … Respondent

Date of Institution of Appeal : 06.02.2018
Date on which judgment was reserved : 19.03.2018
 Date on which judgment was pronounced        
   :           
   19.03.2018

APPEAL AGAINST JUDGMENT DATED 15.03.2017 PASSED BY
 SH. DHARMENDER SINGH, LD. CIVIL JUDGE (WEST),
 TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI IN CIVIL SUIT NO. 75/15.

­:J U D G M E N T:­

1.   Appellant   Smt.   Sudha   Miglani  (hereinafter   referred   as
defendant   no.   1)  has   filed   regular   civil   appeal   assailing   judgment   and
  Smt.

decree   dated   15.03.2017   passed   in   Civil   Suit   No.   75/15   titled  ”
Savitri Devi vs. Sudha Miglani  Anr.”.

Page 1 of 8 DOD: 19.03.2018
Smt. Sudha Miglani Vs. Smt. Savitri Devi
RCA No. 8/18

2.   Briefly   stated,   facts   of   the   case   leading   to   filing   of   appeal

against impugned judgment are discussed below :­
2.1  Plaintiff   Smt.   Savitri   Devi   has   filed   suit   for   mandatory
injunction, permanent injunction and mesne profits Rs. 60,000/­ along­with
pendente lite and future interest against her daughter­in­law Smt. Sudha
Miglani and son Sh. Amit Miglani.

2.2 As   per   plaintiff’s   case,   her   husband   Sh.   Nau   Nihal   Chand
Miglani was the original allottee of property No. D­2/89, Janak Puri, New
Delhi and conveyance deed dated 25.08.2003 was subsequently issued in
his favour whereas defendants being her son and daughter­in­law were
permitted to reside in the suit property after their marriage solemnized on
24.08.1998.

2.3 Plaintiff has also averred about settlement effected between
defendants before CAW Cell in the year 2003 who thereafter started living
together   in   the   suit   property.   Further,   plaintiff   has   also   stated   about
collaboration   agreement   entered   between   her   husband   and   builder   for
reconstruction of property and retention of ownership of ground floor, first
floor   and   third   floor   of   the   property   with   roof   rights   in   the   year   2011.
Further,   she   has   also   averred   about   registered   Will   dated   13.10.2011
executed by her husband bequeathing all his rights in the ground floor, first
floor (without roof rights) and roof rights of the third floor in her favour for
asserting herself as sole and absolute owner of said portion of the property
to the exclusion of all other heirs or successors.
2.4 Plaintiff and her husband are stated to have resided on the
ground floor of the property whereas defendants along­with with their two
daughters (grand daughters of plaintiff) were permitted to reside on the

Page 2 of 8 DOD: 19.03.2018
Smt. Sudha Miglani Vs. Smt. Savitri Devi
RCA No. 8/18

first floor while the third floor of the property was let out on rent.
2.5 Plaintiff has also alleged about harassment and mental torture
meted   out   by   defendant   Smt.   Sudha   Miglani   by   filing   false   complaints
raising   vague,   reckless   and   frivolous   allegations   under   Protection   of
Women against Domestic Violence Act, 2005 at Women Cell, PS Mayapuri
and PS Kirti Nagar and referred to petitions U/s 12 of PWDV Act, 2005 and
U/s 125 Cr.PC which are pending before Ld. MM, Mahila Court and Ld.
Family Court at Tis Hazari Courts.

2.6 Further,   plaintiff   has   also   averred   about   notice   dated
30.12.2014 calling upon defendants to vacate the suit property, but in vain,
for seeking damages @ Rs. 1000/­ per day as defendants being licence
have   remained   in   unauthorized   possession   of   the   property   and   are
therefore   liable   to   pay   damage/mesne   profits   till   the   date   of   actual
possession first floor of the property.    

3. Defendants were served summons and were directed to file
their written statement within statutory period vide order dated 22.04.2015.
Perusal of Trial Court Record reveals that father of defendant No. 1 had
appeared in court on 07.07.2015 and requested for extension of time for
filing   written   statement   which   was   acceded   by   Ld.   Trial   Court   directing
defendant No.1 to file her written statement within three weeks. Matter was
thereafter   listed   for   filing   written   statement   till   13.08.2015   when
defendants’ right to file written statement was eventually closed.

4. Defendant Smt. Sudha Miglani, thereafter, filed application U/s
151 CPC dated 15.09.2015 for condoning delay in filing written statement
and   for   seeking   reasonable   time   to   file   her   written   statement   which
application was heard and dismissed by Ld. Trial court vide order dated

Page 3 of 8 DOD: 19.03.2018
Smt. Sudha Miglani Vs. Smt. Savitri Devi
RCA No. 8/18

16.10.2015. Matter was, thereafter, listed for further proceedings by Ld.
Trial Court till 23.05.2016 when plaintiff was directed to lead her evidence.

5. Defendant Smt. Sudha Miglani, in the meantime, filed appeal
assailing   order   dated   16.10.2015   of   Ld.   Trial   Court   which   appeal   was
dismissed being not maintainable by Ld. ADJ­01, West, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi vide order dated 22.12.2015 passed in MCA No. 10/15 titled “Sudha
Miglani   vs.   Savitri   Devi”.  Defendant’s   counsel,  nonetheless,  kept   on
asserting  about  appeal   against   order   dated   16.10.2015  filed  before
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi as recorded in order­sheets dated 14.03.2016,
03.05.2016 and 23.05.2016. 

6. Plaintiff Smt. Savitri Devi has examined herself as PW­1 by
tendering her affidavit in evidence which is Ex. PW1/A and relied upon
documents referred as Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/9. Her examination­in­chief
was   recorded   on   30.08.2016   and   cross­examination   by   defendant’s
counsel was deferred to 26.09.2016 subject to cost of Rs. 1000/­ to be
paid to plaintiff. Cost Rs. 1000/­ was paid to plaintiff on the next date but
cross­examination of plaintiff (PW­1) could not be recorded as defendant’s
counsel was stated to have gone to Haridwar for performing shraad of his
father and matter was adjourned to 26.10.2016 for cross­examination of
PW­1 upon defendant’s request, but in vain, and defendant’s right to cross­
examine   the   plaintiff   was   eventually   closed   on   26.10.2016.   No   other
witness was examined by plaintiff and plaintiff’s evidence was closed on
26.10.2016.

7. Matter was thereafter listed for final arguments but defendant
filed   three   applications   viz.   application   under   Order   VII   Rule   11   CPC;
application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC and application U/s 26 and 19 of

Page 4 of 8 DOD: 19.03.2018
Smt. Sudha Miglani Vs. Smt. Savitri Devi
RCA No. 8/18

PWDV Act, 2005 r/w Section 151 CPC on 22.02.2017. Submissions were
heard and defendant’s applications were dismissed by Ld. Trial Court vide
three   separate   orders,   all   dated   14.03.2017,   and   plaintiff’s   suit   was
thereafter   decreed  vide   judgment   dated   15.03.2017   granting   reliefs   of
permanent injunction, mandatory injunction and damages/ mesne profits
@ Rs. 1000/­ per day from the date of termination of licence till vacation of
first floor of suit property in addition to interest @ 6% per annum from the
date of institution of the suit till realization of amount.

8.  Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by Ld. Trial
Court,   defendant   no.   1  (appellant   herein)  has   filed   appeal   assailing
judgment upon following grounds :­
8.1  That   suit   property   is   a   joint   family   property   and   defendant
Smt. Sudha Miglani  having  resided  in the property  for  last 19  years  is
entitled   to   reside   in   shared   household   as   her   father­in­law   had   died
intestate. 

8.2  That legal notice dated 30.12.2014 referred as Ex. PW1/4 is
void ab initio as suit property was not in existence at the time of execution
of impugned Will. 

8.3 That alleged Will dated 13.10.2011 has not been proved as
per   section   68   of   the   Indian   Evidence   Act,   1872   which   fact   has   been
ignored by Ld. Trial Court resulting in miscarriage of justice. 
8.4 That plaintiff has wrongly averred and testified in her affidavit
Ex.   PW1/A   that   defendant   Smt.   Sudha   Miglani   and   her   husband   are
staying on the first floor of the property whereas plaintiff’s son (husband of
defendant no. 1) is residing with his mother on the ground floor of the
property. 

Page 5 of 8 DOD: 19.03.2018
Smt. Sudha Miglani Vs. Smt. Savitri Devi
RCA No. 8/18

8.5  That plaintiff is not the absolute owner of suit property and

has filed suit in connivance with defendant no. 2 to dispossess defendant
Smt. Sudha Miglani  (appellant herein)  from matrimonial house which is
evident   from   judicial   record   as   defendant   no.   2   has   neither   entered
appearance nor engaged any counsel.  

8.6 That defendant Smt. Sudha Miglani is entitled to reside in the
shared household as per section 16 of PWDV Act and reliefs U/s 18, 19,
20, 21 and 22 can be sought by defendant in any legal proceedings before
Civil Court as per Section 26 of DV Act which was enacted for providing
more   effective   protection   of   rights   of   women   guaranteed   under   the
Constitution of India. 

9.  Notice of appeal was issued and served upon respondent and
Trial Court Record (TCR) has been summoned from Record Room, Tis
Hazari Courts, Delhi. 

10.  Advocate   Sh.   Anuj   Kumar   Pandey   for   appellant   has
addressed his submission by relying upon following case­laws:

1.  A. V. Papayya Sastry  Ors. vs. Government of A. P.  Ors.
on 7th March 2007, Supreme Court of India.

2.   Ramchandra Singh vs. Savitri Devi  Ors. On 9 th  October
2003, Supreme Court of India.

3.   S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath on 27 th  October
1993, Supreme Court of India.

4.   Preeti   Sateja   vs.   Raj   Kumari   on   15 th  January   2014,   Delhi
High Court.

5. Roma   Rajesh   Tiwari   vs.   Rajesh   Deenanath   Tiwari   on   12 th
October 2017, Bombay High Court.

Page 6 of 8                                                                      DOD: 19.03.2018
Smt. Sudha Miglani Vs. Smt. Savitri Devi
RCA No. 8/18

11. At the outset, it is apt to record that defendant Smt. Sudha
Miglani has ingeniously avoided filing written statement before Ld. Trial
Court as written statement was not filed by defendant till 13.08.2015 when
her right to file written statement was closed and thereafter defendant's
application dated 15.09.2015 U/s 151 CPC was filed before Ld. Trial Court
for condoning delay in filing written statement and for seeking reasonable
time to file written statement which application was dismissed vide order
dated 16.10.2015 and appeal bearing MCA No. 75/15 assailing order of
Ld.   Trial   Court   was   dismissed   by   Ld.   ADJ­01,   West/Delhi,   Tis   Hazari
Courts vide order dated 22.12.2015.  

12. Advocate   Sh.   A   K   Pandey   for   defendant   having   asserted
about appeal filed before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, nevertheless, during
course   of   submissions   has   stated   that   appeal   against   order   dated
16.10.2015   was  not   admitted   by   Hon'ble   High   Court   of   Delhi   and   was
thereafter not pursued. 

13. Since   plaintiff's   averments   about   conveyance   deed   dated
25.08.2003 issued in favour of her husband Sh. Nau Nihal Chand and
registered   Will   dated   13.10.2011   executed   in   her   favour   for   asserting
herself   as   sole   and   absolute   owner   of   suit   property   has   remained
uncontroverted in the absence of written statement and her testimony has
remained unrebutted in the absence of cross­examination by defendant's
counsel so defendant Smt. Sudha Miglani (appellant herein) cannot raise
any   plea   contending   suit   property   as   joint   family   property/   shared
household   at   appellate   stage.   Similarly,   defendant's   contention   that
registered Will dated 13.10.2011 has not been proved as per section 68 of
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not require any interference by this court

Page 7 of 8 DOD: 19.03.2018
Smt. Sudha Miglani Vs. Smt. Savitri Devi
RCA No. 8/18

as plaintiff Smt. Savitri Devi being mother­in­law is not required to seek
declaration   of   title   for   evicting   her   daughter­in­law   from   property   which
was   alloted   to   her   husband   late   Sh.   Nau   Nihal   Chand   Miglani   and
conveyance   deed   dated   25.08.2003   was   subsequently   issued   in   her
favour. 

14. Hon'ble   High   Court   of   Delhi   in   para   no.   29   of   case   titled
"Barun Kumar Nahar vs. Parul Nahar" 2013 (199) DLT 1 has referred to
various   statutes   including   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955;   the   Hindu
Succession Act, 1956; the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956;
the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the Code
of   Criminal   Procedure,   1973   for   observing   that   none   of   these   statutes
confer   any   right   of   maintenance   including   residence   for   the   married
women as against the parents of husband. 

15. Judgment and decree dated 15.03.2017 of Ld. Trial Court is
therefore   upheld   and   appeal   being   devoid   of   any   merit   is   accordingly
dismissed.  Parties to bear their own cost.

16. Trial Court Record be sent back to Record Room, Tis Hazari
Courts along­with copy of this judgment.

17.   Appeal   file   be   consigned   to   Record   Room   after   necessary
compliance.

                                                                                   Digitally signed by
TARUN TARUN YOGESH

YOGESH Date: 2018.03.21
16:23:39 +0530

Announced in the open Court        (Tarun Yogesh)  
On 19.03.2018       ADJ­03/South West
                       Dwarka / New Delhi

Page 8 of 8 DOD: 19.03.2018

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
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 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