Smt. Ruby Chhabra and Ors vs Shri Amit Mohan Chhabra and Anr

Reva Khetrapal, J.—The plaintiffs have filed the present suit praying for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their agents from visiting the property of the plaintiffs situated at B-19, Pamposh Enclave, New Delhi and the office premises at B-236, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi and from creating any scene within a radius of 500 yards from the said properties of the plaintiffs. The plaintiff No. 1 is the owner of the second floor of property No. B-19, Pamposh Enclave, New Delhi having purchased the same vide a registered Sale Deed dated 10.11.2003. Similarly, the plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 are owners of the first floor and the ground floor of the said property, having purchased the same by registered Sale Deeds dated 10.11.2003 and 20th February, 2003 respectively. The parties are closely related to each other inasmuch as the plaintiff No. 1 is the mother of the plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 and the defendant No. 1 is another son of the plaintiff No. 1 and brother of plaintiffs No. 2 and 3. All of them have been residing in the suit property jointly along with Shri M.M. Chhabra, husband of the plaintiff No. 1 and father of the plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 and the defendant No. 1. On account of a common understanding, though the parties are owners of different floors, they have been using the property together.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendant No. 1 when he contracted a love marriage with Ms. Sukham Bindra @ Prabhjyot Kaur Bindra, he separated from the plaintiffs and started living at S-263, Ground Floor, Greater Kailash I, New Delhi-110048. However, on the dissolution of his marriage with the said Prabhjyot Kaur Bindra on 17.01.2006, the defendant No. 1 approached the plaintiff No. 1 (his mother) and Shri M.M. Chhabra (his father) to allow him to live with them, to which they agreed and also persuaded plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 to allow the defendant No. 1 to live with them. Thus, with effect from 20th January, 2006, the defendant No. 1 started living with the plaintiffs in one room on the first floor. Thereafter, the defendant No. 1 decided to marry the defendant No. 2 and after their marriage was solemnized on 20th April, 2007 the defendants No. 1 and 2 continued to live with the plaintiffs in one bed room of the property and to share the kitchen on the ground floor which was otherwise a common kitchen. After one month of her marriage, the defendant No. 2 started showing her true colours and dictating her terms to each and every member of the family. The defendant No. 2 started picking up quarrels with each and every member of the family, thereby shattering the peace of the family and creating nuisance in the family.

The plaintiffs allege that a stage was reached when the defendant No. 2 started using abusive language with the plaintiff No. 1 and her husband as well as the plaintiffs No. 2 and 3, and the defendant No. 1 never stopped the defendant No. 2 from doing so. Family tranquility thus came to an end and it was not considered appropriate by the plaintiffs to live together with the defendants. In order to avoid any ugly situation, the plaintiffs requested the defendants to make alternative arrangement for themselves so as to avoid further bickering in the family, but the defendants created a scene and refused to accede to the said request. The defendants were advised not only by the plaintiffs but also by common friends that it would be appropriate if they lived separately, and after great persuasion by close relatives the defendants ultimately shifted, on 20.01.2008, to B-123 AB, Kalkaji and since then are living at the said premises.

It is the case of the plaintiffs that for about a month thereafter nothing untoward happened; but after about a month, the defendants started visiting the plaintiffs and making unreasonable demands. The plaintiffs declined to succumb to their unreasonable demands and/or to accommodate the defendants in their house resulting in the defendants creating another scene on 20.01.2008 and threatening the plaintiffs with dire consequences. On 27.01.2008, allegedly the defendants again came to the property of the plaintiffs and created a scene, and thereafter again on 20th February, 2008 gathered several people of the locality by shouting from the ground floor of the house. Since the matter related to the family of the plaintiffs, it was thought wise not to report the matter to the police.

The plaintiffs allege that now it has become a routine for the defendants to visit the property of the plaintiffs, invariably twice a week, and create a scene, knowing fully well that the plaintiffs want to avoid any confrontation. The plaintiffs assert that they are the owners of the property and the defendants have no right, title or interest in the same, nor they have any business to visit the said property or the office at B-236, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi, as otherwise they have no connection with the same and are living independently at Kalkaji. The plaintiffs further state that on account of the continuous misbehavior and threatening attitude of the defendants, Shri M.M. Chhabra, father of the plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 and husband of the plaintiff No. 1 has severed his relations with the defendant No. 1 by issuance of a public notice to this effect. In these circumstances, the defendants are liable to be restrained from visiting the property of the plaintiffs and/or creating any scene in the vicinity thereof. The plaintiffs state that now they are under constant strain and fear from the defendants and are left with no other remedy except to file the present suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from making any entry in their property or creating any scene in the vicinity thereof.

Summons of the filing of the suit were duly served upon the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, who were proceeded ex parte on August 18, 2008 in default of appearance. On 06.11.2008, on an application filed by the defendant No. 2, the ex parte order qua the defendant No. 2 was set aside. Written statement was filed by the defendant No. 2, to which the plaintiffs filed a replication, but subsequently on 12.07.2011, the defendant No. 2 was again set down ex parte in default of appearance. Ex parte evidence was adduced by the plaintiffs by filing affidavit by way of evidence of the plaintiff No. 2 Shri Aditya Mohan Chhabra on behalf of the plaintiffs.

In his affidavit in evidence, PW1 Shri Aditya Mohan Chhabra reiterated and reaffirmed the averments and allegations made in the plaint against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and proved on record certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 10.11.2003 to establish the ownership of plaintiff No. 1 of the second floor of property No. B-19, Pamposh Enclave, New Delhi - Ex.PW1/2. He also proved on record Sale Deeds dated 10.11.2003 and 20th February, 2003 in his favour and in favour of the plaintiff No. 3 Shri Nitin Mohan Chhabra pertaining to the purchase of the first floor and ground floor of the said property respectively - Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/3. He stated on oath that the plaintiffs were the owners of the property at B-19, Pamposh Enclave, New Delhi and the defendants had no right, title or interest in the same, nor the defendant No. 1 had any business to visit the said property or the office at B-236, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi-110019. Property No. B-236, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi, he stated on oath, was owned by Shri M.M. Chhabra, who is the husband of the plaintiff No. 1 and father of the plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 as well as the defendant No. 1. He proved on record a certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 11.10.2005 in favour of Shri M.M. Chhabra of property No. B-236, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi as Ex.PW1/4. He also proved on record a public notice issued by Shri M.M. Chhabra on 04.03.2008 in "The Statesman", Delhi Edition as Ex.PW1/5.

The aforesaid evidence adduced by the plaintiffs is unchallenged and unrebutted on record, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 having chosen to remain ex parte despite service of summons upon them. In these circumstances, there is no impediment to the grant of the relief prayed for by the plaintiffs.

The suit is accordingly decreed by passing a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, their agents or representatives from visiting the property of the plaintiffs at B-19, Pamposh Enclave, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi or the office premises at B-236, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi or from making any entry in the said properties. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are further restrained from creating any scene within the radius of 500 yards from the aforesaid properties. CS(OS) No. 575/2008 stands disposed of accordingly. IA Nos. 11743/2008 and 2377/2010 also stand disposed of.