Delhi District Court
In The Court Of Sh. Bharat Aggarwal vs Smt. Har Preet Kaur on 17 February, 2020
                                           ­ 1 ­

IN THE COURT OF SH. BHARAT AGGARWAL, CIVIL JUDGE, DELHI
                                      (WEST)­02
                               SUIT NO.607709/16
Pritpal Singh
S/o Late Sh. Hari Singh,
R/o 3107/4, Gali No.5,
Ranjeet Nagar,
New Delhi ­ 110008
                                                      ..........................PLAINTIFF
                                      VERSUS
Smt. Har Preet Kaur,
W/o Late Sh. Amar Preet Singh,
R/o 3107/4, Gali No.5, First Floor,
Ranjeet Nagar, New Delhi ­ 110008
                                                       .....................DEFENDANT


Suit filed on - 21/03/2015
Judgment Reserved on - 17/02/2020
Date of decision - 17/02/2020


       SUIT FOR MANDATORY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION


JUDGMENT:­
           By this judgment, I shall adjudicate a suit for mandatory and
permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.              Before
adjudicating upon the issues framed in the present suit, it is necessary to state the
pleadings in the present suit concisely.


Suit No.607709/16                                                           Page­1/13
                                            ­ 2 ­

Pleadings of the plaintiff :­


1.

The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against his daughter in law i.e. the defendant seeking mandatory injunction that the defendant be directed to remove the door and grill on the first floor of the property situated at house No.3107/4, Gali No.5, Ranjit Nagar, New Delhi­110008 (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”), which is stated to be blocking the way/passage of the plaintiff to the second floor of the suit property. Further, a decree of permanent injunction is sought that the defendant be restrained from alienating, transferring or creating third party interest in the first floor of the suit property.

It is stated by the plaintiff that he is the owner of the suit property and defendant was married to his son i.e. Sh. Amar Preet Singh in the year 2003 and the said son of the plaintiff being the husband of the defendant expired on 29/01/2013. It is stated that due to matrimonial discord, a complaint U/S 18 of the Domestic Violence Act was filed by the defendant and a settlement agreement was arrived between the parties on 04/08/2011. The said agreement has been signed by the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff has relied upon following portion of the settlement agreement dt.04/08/2011.

“There is common access to all the floors of property from main gate on the ground floor. It has been agreed between the parties that they will decide about the lock to be put on the main gate of property which may be put from outside whenever one or the other party goes out for some work in the absence of other. One key of the said lock shall be retained by each party so that they may have free access by opening the lock with the same and getting inside.

The complainant may secure her goods by keeping the room of first floor, kitchen etc. under her lock and key. She has undertaken not to keep any goods or articles in the stairs so as to obstruct access of the occupants of second floor or the persons going to the roof of the house. The house is so Suit No.607709/16 Page­2/13 ­ 3 ­ constructed that one has to cross the veranda on the first floor for going to the second floor. The complainant shall arrange her goods in the veranda in such a way as not to obstruct or his passage uncomfortable to the person going to the upper floor.”

It is stated that an FIR U/S 498A/406/34 IPC was registered at P.S. Ranjit Nagar at the behest of the defendant and in view of the settlement dt.04/08/2011, the FIR and the proceedings were quashed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide order dt.18/01/2013. It is stated that the suit property is constructed up to the second floor, wherein the ground floor is in possession of the plaintiff and the first floor is in possession of the defendant. It is stated that the house is so constructed that a person is required to cross the veranda on the first floor in order to go to the second floor. That the defendant was allowed to live as a licensee in one room and a kitchen on the first floor and the belongings/goods of the other son of the plaintiff i.e. Sh. Vikram Jeet Singh are lying on the second floor of the suit property. It is alleged that the defendant is continuously harassing the plaintiff and giving him threats with the intention to grab the entire suit property whereas the suit property is self acquired property of the plaintiff which was acquired through his hard earned income.

It is alleged that on 15/07/2014 when the plaintiff and his wife returned from Punjab they found that the new door and grill was constructed on the first of the property in the manner that neither the plaintiff nor any of his family members can go to the second floor of the house in question and the defendant has blocked the way/passage of the plaintiff by installing a door and a grill. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a complaint before SHO P.S. Ranjeet Nagar and allegedly no action was taken by the said officer. It is further stated that the plaintiff has requested for various authorities for action against the installation of door and grill by the defendant, but to no avail. In these circumstances, the plaintiff has sought the permission of this court in terms of mandatory injunction for removal of the door and grill allegedly installed by the defendant.

Suit No.607709/16                                                          Page­3/13
                                          ­ 4 ­

Pleadings of the Defendant :­

2. Written statement was filed by the defendant wherein inter alia it is stated that the defendant is the owner and in exclusive possession of the first floor of the suit property. It was further stated that ground floor of the suit property is in possession of the plaintiff and the second floor is in possession of Sh. Vikram Jeet Singh and he has not been impleaded by the plaintiff in the present case. It was further stated that the plaintiff has no right or interest to visit the second floor of the suit property as per the amicable settlement between the parties. It was alleged that the plaintiff in collusion with his other son has installed an iron gate on the roof of the second floor in order to stop the access of the defendant to the roof of the suit property. It was further stated that in terms of the settlement, the plaintiff has no right to alienate the suit property except with the permission of the court. The defendant has specifically denied that the defendant has blocked the passage of the plaintiff and his family members to the second floor of the suit property. It was also stated that the alleged new door and grill is not a new construction but has been in existence in the property since long for security purpose.

3. Replication has also been filed on behalf of plaintiff to the written statement of defendant wherein the averments made in the written statement were denied and those made in the plaint were reiterated and reaffirmed.

It was also stated that the defendant is a mere licensee and not the owner of the first floor of the suit property. It was also stated that most of the household articles of the plaintiff i.e. washing machine, cloths, bedding, almirah, television, etc. of the plaintiff are lying in the second floor of the suit property. It is further stated that the door and the grill were not in existence at the time of the settlement before the mediation center and hence there is no whisper of the grill or the door on the first floor of the suit property in the settlement agreement.

Suit No.607709/16                                                           Page­4/13
                                         ­ 5 ­

Issues :­

4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed in the suit vide order dt.30/09/2015 :­

(a) Whether there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff to file the present suit? OPD

(b) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP

(c) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

(d) Relief.

Evidence :­

5. In order to prove his case, plaintiff led the following evidence :­

(a) Plaintiff examined himself as PW­1 and filed his evidence affidavit which is exhibited as Ex. P­1 wherein the contents of the plaint were merely reiterated. PW­1 relied upon the following documents in order to prove his case.

     Identification Mark                          Description

Ex. PW­1/1                 The photographs.

Ex. PW­1/2                 Site plan.

Ex. PW­1/3                 Copy of complaint dt.16/07/2014 to SHO P.S. Ranjit
                           Nagar.

Ex. PW­1/4                 Copy of complaint to Additional Commissioner of
                           Police.

Ex. PW­1/5                 Copy of mediation settlement dt.04/08/2011.

Ex. PW­1/6 (Colly)         Copy of order dt.29/08/2011 passed by Ld. M.M. Delhi
                           and copy of statement of defendant.


Suit No.607709/16                                                            Page­5/13
                                          ­ 6 ­

PW­1 was cross­examined by the counsel for the defendant wherein he stated that his father resided in the suit property as a tenant till the year 1979 and in the year 1993 the first and second floor of the suit property were got constructed. That he used to reside on the ground floor, however, his children resided on the first floor. He further stated that his other son i.e. Sh. Vikram Jeet Singh got married in the year 2007 and he was allowed to reside on the second floor of the suit property. He stated that there is a gate on stair No.28 on the second floor as shown in the site plan filed by the plaintiff Ex. PW­1/2. He stated that Sh. Vikram Jeet Singh is presently residing in Punjab and that he had put locks on the second floor of the suit property when the said son left the same. He admitted that at the time of the mediation agreement Ex. PW­1/5 his son Sh. Vikram Jeet Singh used to reside at the suit property. He stated that the suit property was purchased in the year 1993 for a consideration of Rs.88,000/­ from one Sh. Hari Prakash.

(b) Head Constable Sh. Satya Prakash was examined as PW­2 by the plaintiff who brought the summoned record being the original complaints Ex. PW­1/3 and PW­1/4.

(c) Thereafter the plaintiff examined Ms. Sarabjeet Kaur, wife of the plaintiff as PW­3. PW­3 filed her evidence affidavit which is Ex. PW­3 wherein she reiterated the averments made in the plaint.

PW­3 was also cross­examined by the counsel for defendant whereby inter alia she stated that her son namely Sh. Vikram Jeet Singh was residing on the second floor of the suit property at the time of the mediation settlement dt.04/08/2011 and when the FIR No.122/11 was quashed. She admitted that there is one iron gate installed at the second floor, but she stated that she does not remember the date and the year when such iron gate on the second floor was installed. She further stated that plaintiff is the owner of the suit property.

(d)        One Ms. Usha Rani was examined on behalf of the plaintiff as PW­4


Suit No.607709/16                                                          Page­6/13
                                          ­ 7 ­

who filed her evidence affidavit Ex. PW­4/A. It is stated by PW­4 in her evidence affidavit that she knows the parties and she has seen the suit property. She stated that she has put some of her articles in the second floor of the suit property with the permission of the plaintiff. She further stated that if one has to go to the second floor of the suit property then he will be required to cross the veranda on the first floor. She further stated that the defendant has blocked the passage of the plaintiff and her family members by installing the iron gate and grill. She further stated that even she cannot go to the second floor to take her articles.

PW­4 was cross­examined by the counsel for defendant whereby inter alia she stated that she knows the plaintiff and his wife for the last 30 years as she is the neighbour of the plaintiff. She further stated that Vikram Jeet Singh used to reside on the second floor of the suit property and he is not residing there for the last five to six years. She further stated that nobody resides on the second floor of the suit property. She further stated that there is door and lock on the second floor of the suit property and that there is no other lock in the stair of the suit property except on second floor. She stated that some of her articles have also been locked on the second floor.

Thereafter, PE was closed upon the statement of the plaintiff vide order dt.28/03/2017.

6. In order to prove her case the defendant led the following evidence :­

(a) Defendant examined herself as DW­1 and filed her evidence affidavit which is exhibited as Ex. DW­1/A. It was stated that the suit property is an ancestral property of the plaintiff and she being the wife of the deceased son of the plaintiff, has rights in the property. She again reiterated her stand that she is the owner and in possession of the first floor of the suit property and the plaintiff has no right or interest to visit the second floor of the suit property.

Suit No.607709/16                                                          Page­7/13
                                          ­ 8 ­

DW­1 was cross­examined by the counsel for the plaintiff whereby she inter alia stated that after 15 days of her marriage she started residing on the first floor of the suit property and that there is no written document pertaining to the right to reside on the first floor. She further stated that there is the common staircase which leads upto the second floor. She stated that she has seen the photographs Ex. PW­1/1 (Colly) and the same are of the suit property. She further stated that she has not seen any sale deed in favour of her husband’s grandfather. She further denied the suggestion of counsel for the plaintiff that the plaintiff purchased the suit property from Smt. Murti Devi vide documents bearing Mark­B to Mark­I. She admitted that she had put a lock on the door placed on the first floor leading to the second floor. She further admitted that the said door is always kept locked by her. She further stated that she had never given the keys of the said lock to the plaintiff. She stated that she does not have any title documents in respect of the suit property in her or her husband’s favour. She further admitted that she will put her goods on the first floor in such a manner that there would be no obstruction to anybody to go to the second floor of the suit property. She stated that the plaintiff installed the door and grill on the first floor for security purpose before her marriage. She stated that there was no issue or dispute pertaining to the installation of the door and grill at the time of mediation proceedings.

DE was closed vide statement of the defendant on 09/10/2017.

Decision with reasons :­

7. The arguments were heard on behalf of both the parties at length and record has been carefully perused. Now, I shall give my issue­wise findings which are as under :­ Suit No.607709/16 Page­8/13 ­ 9 ­

8. Issue No.(a) ­

(a) Whether there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff to file the present suit? OPD The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant. No specific evidence was led by the defendant to prove the aforesaid issue. In fact, no arguments were advanced on behalf of the defendant to state that there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff. Even otherwise, the plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking decree of mandatory injunction that the defendant be directed to remove the door and grill installed by the defendant on the first floor of the suit property. It is stated that when on 15/07/2014 the plaintiff returned from Punjab he noticed that the door and grill was installed in the suit property in such a manner that the plaintiff or any of his family members could not approach the second floor of the suit property. In these circumstances, it appears that the plaintiff does have a cause of action against the defendant in the present case.

Therefore, this issue is decided against the defendant and in favour of plaintiff.

9. Issue No.(b) & (c) ­

(b) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP

(c) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP The onus to prove these issues was upon the plaintiff. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff has relied upon Ex. PW­1/1 which shows that the iron gate and grill have been installed in the staircase leading to the first floor of the suit property. It is quite apparent from the photographs that if the iron gate so installed is locked from the inside or if the plaintiff has not been provided with the keys then the passage/way of the plaintiff to the first or second floor and Suit No.607709/16 Page­9/13 ­ 10 ­ terrace of the suit property would be restricted or blocked. Plaintiff has also relied upon Ex. PW­1/3 and PW­1/4 which are the complaints sent by the plaintiff to the concerned police officers in order to prove that the defendant installed the iron gate and the grill due to which the passage of the plaintiff to the second floor of the suit property was blocked.

Plaintiff has also relied upon Ex. PW­1/5 i.e. the settlement agreement dt.04/08/2011 which has been duly signed by the plaintiff and the defendant. Perusal of Ex. PW­1/5 reveals that there is common access to all the floors of the suit property and it was agreed that the locks would be put on the main gate of the property and the keys shall be retained by each party. It was also recorded that the defendant can secure her goods by keeping the room of the first floor and the kitchen locked. She undertook therein that she will not keep any goods or articles in the stairs so as to obstruct the access of the occupants of the second floor or to any person going to the roof of the suit property. It was recorded that the house/the suit property is constructed in a manner that one has to cross the veranda on the first floor to reach the second floor. Further the defendant agreed that she would arrange her goods in the veranda in such a way so as to not obstruct the passage of a person going to the upper floor. It was mentioned that such terms and conditions were signed by the parties voluntarily after understanding their contents and consequences.

On the basis of the said settlement agreement the complaint under the Domestic Violence Act filed by the defendant was disposed off as compromised vide order dt.29/08/2011 passed by the Ld. M.M. During the cross­examination of DW­1 document bearing Mark­A to Mark­I also came on record i.e. the order dt.28/01/2013 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, GPA executed by Smt. Murti Devi, Sh. Hari Prakash, Smt. Dayawati and Smt. Satyawati in favour of the plaintiff, deed of Will, Agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt all dt.18/02/1993 in respect of the suit property. The plaintiff has claimed to be the owner of the suit Suit No.607709/16 Page­10/13 ­ 11 ­ property and alleged that the defendant is a mere licensee on the first floor of the suit property. Per contra, it is alleged by the defendant that she is the owner of the suit property. The documents bearing Mark­B to Mark­I clearly show exclusive rights in respect of the entire suit property in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant has failed to file any document in order to show her alleged ownership over the suit property. In fact during her cross­examination DW­1 admitted that she does not have any documents of title in respect of the suit property in her or in her husband’s favour. Therefore, it is quite apparent that mere bald averments have been made by the defendant regarding her ownership of the first floor of the suit property and such averment has remained totally unsubstantiated.

It is the case of the plaintiff that as the defendant has installed the iron gate and grill on the staircase leading to the veranda of the first floor, he and his family member are unable access the second floor as well as roof of the suit property. The defendant has on the other hand stated that the plaintiff has no right or interest to visit the suit property as per the amicable settlement between the parties. Bare perusal of the settlement dt.04/08/2011 Ex. PW­1/5 clearly reveals that the defendant agreed not to obstruct the access of any person going to the roof of the house. Defendant has also admitted that photographs PW­1/1 filed by the plaintiff and the fact that there is common staircase in the suit property which leads to the roof of the suit property. It is not in dispute that a person is required to cross a veranda on the first floor in order to go to the second floor or the roof of the suit property. In fact it was also undertaken by the defendant that she shall arrange the goods in the veranda in such a way that there shall be no obstruction or discomfort to a person going to the upper floor. The plaintiff has clearly established his rights in the suit property which is apparent from documents bearing Mark­B to Mark­I and in view of the same, the argument of the defendant that plaintiff or his family members has no right to Suit No.607709/16 Page­11/13 ­ 12 ­ approach the second floor of the suit property is completely devoid of merits. A person having rights in the property also has the right to have unhindered access to all the floors including the roof of the building.

DW­1 during her cross­examination has admitted that she has put a lock on the door placed on the first floor leading to the second floor and such door has always been kept locked by her. She further admitted that she has not given the keys of the said lock to the plaintiff. In view of the said statements it is evident that the defendant has deliberately caused an obstruction in the way/passage of the plaintiff to approach the upper floors of the suit property. The said obstruction is not only in face of and in violation of the agreement dt.04/08/2011 executed between the parties but is also an unreasonable interference with the legal right of the plaintiff to have an unobstructed passage to the upper floors of the property.

The defendant has claimed herself to be the owner of the first floor of the suit property alleging the suit property to be ancestral, however, such fact has remained unproved on record. In view of the aforesaid observations issue no.(b) and (c) are decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed.

10. Issue no.(d) ­

(d) Relief – In view of the findings given on issues no.(a) to (c), documents placed on record, pleadings of the parties and evidence led by the parties, the plaintiff has proved his case on the scale of preponderance of probabilities. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed and following reliefs are awarded to the plaintiff :­ (I) Defendant is hereby directed by way of mandatory injunction to remove the iron gate installed on the passage leading to the first floor of the suit Suit No.607709/16 Page­12/13 ­ 13 ­ property situated at house No.3107/4, Gali No.5, Ranjit Nagar, New Delhi­ 110008 within two weeks from today, failing which the plaintiff shall be at liberty to himself remove the said iron gate. In that case, if any obstruction is caused by the defendant, the concerned SHO of the area is hereby directed to provide ample police assistance to the plaintiff for the aforesaid purpose.

(II) A decree of permanent injunction is hereby passed against the defendant and she is restrained from alienating, transferring or creating a third party interest in the first floor of the suit property situated at house No.3107/4, Gali No.5, Ranjit Nagar, New Delhi­110008.

Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record Digitally signed room after completing the necessary formalities. BHARAT by BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2020.02.19 16:41:27 +0530 (BHARAT AGGARWAL) Civil Judge, Delhi (West)­02 Announced in the open court on 17/02/2020.

Suit No.607709/16                                                        Page­13/13

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s