2013 (2) TMI 722 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Ownership and Right to Reside in the Property.
2. Grant of Interim Mandatory Injunction.
3. Allegations of Fraud and Non-disclosure.
4. Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Harm.

Summary:

Ownership and Right to Reside in the Property:
The plaintiff, father-in-law of defendant No.1 and father of defendant No.2, claimed sole ownership of the property at B-197, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi, purchased via a sale deed dated 10.8.1971. The plaintiff sought a mandatory injunction to direct defendant No.1 to vacate the premises and a permanent injunction to restrain her from disturbing his peaceful possession. The court noted that the property is self-acquired by the plaintiff and not a shared household u/s 2(s) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, as it does not belong to the joint family or rented by defendant No.2.

Grant of Interim Mandatory Injunction:
The court discussed the principles for granting interim mandatory injunctions, emphasizing the need to prevent irreparable harm and maintain balance of convenience. The court found a strong prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff, noting the plaintiff's and his wife's advanced age and health conditions. The court referenced several judgments, including S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra, to support the view that a daughter-in-law has no right to reside in a property owned by her parents-in-law.

Allegations of Fraud and Non-disclosure:
Defendant No.1's counsel argued that the plaintiff suppressed material facts about his residence in Calcutta, violating the Representation of People Act, 1951. The court acknowledged that it would have been better for the plaintiff to disclose this fact but concluded that it did not amount to suppression of material facts that would disqualify the plaintiff from equitable relief. The court focused on the plaintiff's right to reside in his Delhi property.

Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Harm:
The court determined that the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff, noting the continuous harassment by defendant No.1 and the potential irreparable harm to the plaintiff and his wife. The court directed defendant No.1 to vacate the property within one month and allowed her to shift to a rented accommodation offered by defendant No.2 or accept Rs. 30,000 towards rent, pending the decision on her maintenance application.

Conclusion:
The court granted the interim mandatory injunction in favor of the plaintiff, directing defendant No.1 to vacate the property and hand over possession to the plaintiff within one month. The court also directed the concerned court to decide on defendant No.1's maintenance application, including her right to a commensurate residence, within one month.