VEENA DEVI Vs. PRAVEEN KUMAR GUPTA
LAWS(DLH)-2021-3-163
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on March 22,2021

VEENA DEVI Appellant
VERSUS
PRAVEEN KUMAR GUPTA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

NEELATHUPARA KUMMI SEETHI KOYA PHANGAL (DEAD) BY L.RS. VS. MONTHARAPALLA PADIPPUA ATTAKOYA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
PUSHAP RAJ VS. KULDEEP SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR VS. HIRALAL [REFERRED TO]
BANSIDHAR SHARMA (SINCE DECEASED) REP. BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE V. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
LAL BHAGWANT SINGH VS. KISHEN DAS [REFERRED TO]
PADAM SEN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR LAL CHOPRA VS. RAI BAHADUR RAO RAJA SETH HIRALAL [REFERRED TO]
ARJUN SINGH VS. MOHINDRA KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
RAIN CHAND AND SONS SUGAR MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED BARABANKI U P VS. KANHAYALAL BHARGAVA [REFERRED TO]
NAIN SINGH VS. KOONWARJEE [REFERRED TO]
PASUPULETI VENKATESWARLU VS. MOTOR AND GENERAL TRADERS [REFERRED TO]
NEWABGANJ SUGAR MILLS COMPANY LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
JAIPUR MINERAL DEVELOPMENT SYNDICATE JAIPUR VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW DELHI [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA RAM MAHALE DEAD VS. SHOBHA VENKAT RAO [REFERRED TO]
KAVITA TREHAN VS. BALSARA HYGIENE PRODUCTS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
SAMIR SOBHAN SANYAL VS. TRACKS TRADE PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
S R EJAZ VS. TAMIL NADU HANDLOOM WEAVERS CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED VS. MACHADO BROTHERS [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH and NEURO SCIENCES VS. C PARAMESHWARA [REFERRED TO]
TANUSREE BASU VS. ISHANI PRASAD BASU [REFERRED TO]
VINOD SETH VS. DEVINDER BAJAJ [REFERRED TO]
K K VELUSAMY VS. N PALANISAMY [REFERRED TO]
MARIA MARGARIDA SEQUERIA FERNANDES VS. ERASMO JACK DE SEQUERIA DEAD THROUGH L RS [REFERRED TO]
SUJIT PAL VS. PRABIR KUMAR SUN [REFERRED TO]
MURTI BHAWANI MATA MANDIR VS. RAMESH [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. - (1.)This Regular Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 read with Order 42 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') against the impugned judgment dated 06.05.2019 whereby the appeal of the Appellants against the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2018 in Suit No. 607578/2016 has been dismissed.
(2.)Brief and relevant facts necessary for adjudication of the appeal are that Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein/ Plaintiffs in the Suit, being the sons of Late Shri Shankar Lal and Smt. Veena Devi, instituted a Suit for permanent injunction against their parents. Late Shri Shankar Lal was Defendant No. 1 and Smt. Veena Devi was Defendant No. 2. The suit was filed to restrain the Defendants from dispossessing them from shop No. 5308, Shora Kothi, Paharganj, New Delhi (suit property). It was alleged that (a) the Plaintiffs were carrying out their business from the suit property at the time of institution of the suit; (b) Plaintiff No. 1 was carrying on business of catering for the last 12 years and his goods and other catering material were lying in the suit property; (c) Plaintiff No. 2 was carrying on business of tent/decorators and furniture for about 12 years and his tent material, utensils etc. were lying in the suit property; (d) Plaintiff No. 3 was carrying on business of sweets for the last 5 years and his articles were lying in the suit property; (e) Defendant No. 1 was mentally disturbed and the Plaintiffs were taking care of him including his treatment at various hospitals; (f) Plaintiffs were in settled possession of the suit property and the Defendants were trying to dispossess the Plaintiffs; (g) Defendant No. 2 was the owner of the suit property; (h) Defendant No. 1 threatened to oust the Plaintiffs from the suit property on 21.08.2005 and again on 22.08.2005, which gave rise to cause of action for filing the suit for permanent injunction. Together with the Plaint, the Plaintiffs also filed an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC.
(3.)Written statement was filed by the Defendants alleging (a) the suit was a gross abuse of the process of law; (b) Plaintiffs concealed material facts from the Court; (c) Neither of the Plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property; (d) Allegation that Defendant No.1 was mentally disturbed was false, defamatory and derogatory; (e) Defendant No. 1 had disowned the three sons by a notice, way back in January, 1994; (f) As none of the Plaintiffs were in possession on the date of institution of the suit, the suit was not maintainable; (g) On 15.08.2005 suit property was leased to one Radhey Shyam and this triggered the Plaintiffs coming to the house of the Defendants and threatening the Defendants, which led to a Police Complaint by the Defendants. Replication was filed to the Written Statement by the Plaintiffs.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.