Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2507 (PNJ)

Gagandeep Kaur Saini v. Bachitter Saini

2019-09-09

H.S.MADAAN

body2019
Judgment Mr. H.S. Madaan, J.:-This revision petition is directed against order dated20.12.2018, passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) NRI Court, Jalandhar,ordering restoration of possession of the suit property to theplaintiffs/respondent Nos.1 & 2 on the basis of an application filed bythem under Section 151 CPC. The defendants/respondents pray that thisorder be set aside, by way of acceptance of the revision petition andapplication filed by the plaintiffs seeking restoration of possession bedismissed. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case as per version of the plaintiffare that plaintiffs Bachitter Saini and his wife Parminder Kaur had filed asuit for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants AmritpalSaini, Gurpreet Kaur Saini and Gagan Deep Kaur Saini from takingforcible and illegal possession of the suit property. Along with the suit,they had moved an application for grant of ad-interim injunction and onwhich ad-interim injunction was granted to them. Defendant Nos.5 to 7had put in appearance but since they had failed to file written statement,their defence was struck off. Both the plaintiffs had returned to Italy inthe last of January and at the time of leaving India, they had appointedDalbir Singh as a care taker of the suit property and handed over the keysto him. A dispute arose between defendant No.4 and her husband whowas son of the plaintiffs. Defendant No.4 had filed a complaint to thepolice in Italy which was found to be false. Then, she came to India withher minor daughter Avleen Kaur Saini. However, the defendants had ascuffle with Dalbir Singh and by use of duplicate keys, they entered thesuit property. According to the plaintiffs, the same is their self acquiredproperty with which, the defendants have no concern. The defendantshave come in wrongful possession of the suit property and the possessionbe restored to the plaintiffs. 3. The application was resisted by respondent Nos.4 to 7,contending that defendant Nos.1 to 3 are real sons of plaintiffs anddefendant No.1 Amritpal Saini was married with Gurpreet Kaur Saini,daughter of defendant No.2 in the year 2010. She is daughter ofdefendant Nos. 5 & 6 and real sister of defendant No.7. Defendant No.4Gagandeep Kaur Saini had keys of the property in dispute since hermarriage with defendant No.3 and when defendant No.4 went to Italy, theoriginal keys were also with defendant No.4. Then, defendant No.4 hadgiven birth to a daughter, namely, Avleen Saini in Italy. She is daughter ofdefendant Nos. 5 & 6 and real sister of defendant No.7. Defendant No.4Gagandeep Kaur Saini had keys of the property in dispute since hermarriage with defendant No.3 and when defendant No.4 went to Italy, theoriginal keys were also with defendant No.4. Then, defendant No.4 hadgiven birth to a daughter, namely, Avleen Saini in Italy. She was torturedby her parents in-law Bachitter Singh and Parminder Kaur-plaintiffsalong with her husband and as such, under compelling circumstances, shereturned to India along with minor daughter on 22.06.2018. She used tostay in the house in dispute with her minor daughter. On 09.09.2010,when defendant No.4 along with minor daughter went to the house at9.00 am for cleaning the house, then, Dalbir Singh and Paramjit Kaur andone unknown person came and started pushing the defendant No.4 andher minor daughter in order to turn them out of the house. They also toreher clothes. As such, she moved an application to the police but no actionwas taken. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 have been disinherited by the plaintiffsby way of publication in the newspaper. Therefore, no ground forrestoration of the possession was made out. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and goingthrough the record, the trial Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) NRI Court,Jalandhar, observed that the plaintiffs/applicants are owners of theproperty and defendant No.4, who is alleged to have dispossessed themfrom the property is their daughter in-law. She had not placed on recordany document to show that she has been authorized to stay in the saidhouse as daughter in-law or as a licensee. Therefore, she had no right toreside in the property against the wishes of plaintiffs and without theirconsent, especially when she had been restrained by the Court order frominterfering into the possession of the plaintiffs. Then making reference tothe judgments passed by the Apex Court in Sushil Kumar Dey Biswas & Anr. Vs. Anil Kumar Dey Biswas, 2015(1) Law Herald (SC) 176 and M.N. Ramu @ Ramshetty Vs. Saraswathama, 1991 CCC 743 by KarnatakaHigh Court, observing that if the plaintiff is dispossessed from the housein violation of temporary injunction then the Court can order restorationof possession under Section 151 and further provisions under Order 39Rule 2-A is not a bar for the exercise of this power. Saraswathama, 1991 CCC 743 by KarnatakaHigh Court, observing that if the plaintiff is dispossessed from the housein violation of temporary injunction then the Court can order restorationof possession under Section 151 and further provisions under Order 39Rule 2-A is not a bar for the exercise of this power. As such, applicationhas been accepted, observing that since the plaintiffs have beendispossessed from the property after passing of the injunction order andthey have a lawful right to remain in the property. 5. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order, muchless apparent on the face of it. The order is certainly not perverse or inviolation of settled legal parameters. There is no ground to interfere withthe same by exercising revisional jurisdiction. As such, finding no meritin the revision petition, the same stands dismissed.