FAO(OS)--196/2014. Case: NAVNEET ARORA Vs. SURENDER KAUR & ORS.. High Court of Delhi (India)

Case NumberFAO(OS)--196/2014
CitationNA
Judgement DateSeptember 10, 2014
CourtHigh Court of Delhi (India)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment Reserved on : August 28, 2014 % Judgment Delivered on : September 10

+ FAO(OS) 196/2014

NAVNEET ARORA ..... Appellant

Represented by: Mr.Chetan Lokur and

Mr.Karan Mehta, Advocates for Mr.Viraj Datar, Advocate

versus

SURENDER KAUR AND ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Attin Shankar Rastogi,

Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

  1. Late Sh.Harpal Singh Arora was the registered owner of bearing municipal No.B-44, Vishal Enclave Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. He acquired ownership under a perpetual lease dated June 07, 1974 his favour by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. When he purchased property on perpetual lease-hold basis, it consisted of only the ground floor. He constructed two floors above and sold them during his life time. lived in the ground floor with his family comprising his wife Kaur and two sons named Raman Pal Singh and Gurpreet Singh daughter Sherry, who upon her marriage left the house.

  2. Gurpreet Singh was married to Navneet Arora on May 15, 2001 out of the wedlock a daughter was born to the couple on March 17, On a date not disclosed, Raman Pal Singh got married to Ms.Neetu.

    family comprising Harpal Singh Arora, his wife Surinder Kaur, two Gurpreet Singh and Raman Pal Singh together with their wives together as one family, with one kitchen, on the ground floor of B-44, Vishal Enclave.

  3. Harpal Singh died intestate on June 01, 2008 and was survived by his wife, two sons and daughter as the legal heirs. Each one inherited one forth share in the said property and other assets of the deceased Harpal Singh. On June 13, 2008 the three siblings executed a relinquishment deed in favour of their mother and thus in the official records Surinder Kaur became owner of the property.

  4. Tragedy struck the family when Gurpreet Singh died on May 2012. Unfortunately, difference cropped between Surinder Kaur and daughter-in-law Navneet Arora wife of Gurpreet Singh. Navneet Arora her daughter were occupying one out of the three bed rooms on the floor. One room was occupied by Raman Pal Singh and Neetu Arora. third by Surinder Kaur.

  5. Surinder Kaur filed a suit for permanent and mandatory against Navneet Arora, Raman Pal Singh and his wife Neetu Arora. related to the ground floor.

  6. As was to be expected, Raman Pal Singh and Neetu Arora, collusively, informed the Court that they would move out of the occupied by them, but we take on record the fact that the two continue reside on the ground floor of the property.

  7. Navneet Arora filed a written statement pointing out that she had filed a civil suit registered as number 203/2013 challenging the relinquishment deed executed by her husband in favour of Surinder Kaur which pending before the Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. She pleaded

    on the death of her husband his share would devolve upon her and daughter and since the relinquishment deed was questioned by her, the filed by Surinder Kaur should await the decision in the suit filed by her. Sh claimed that she was living in her matrimonial house in her own right.

  8. The learned Single Judge has held, vide impugned order dated 21, 2014, that since Surinder Kaur was the owner of the property, it not be a „shared household‟ of Navneet Arora in view of the law by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as (2007) 3 SCC S.R.Batra & Anr. vs. Taruna Batra. The learned Single Judge has few other decisions wherein it was held that an estranged daughter-in has no right to stay in the property owned by either her mother-in father-in-law. The learned Single Judge has held that at the old age Surinder Kaur would be entitled to a peaceful life.

  9. The predecessor Division Bench before which the appeal came up for preliminary admission on April 30, 2014, having regard to the nature of the dispute, referred the parties to mediation. The mediation failed. The was assigned to this Bench as per roster on August 14, 2014, and was brought to our notice that the parties are involved in litigation and two valuable assets being a shop at Jwala Heri market factory at Bahadurgarh, Haryana were lying locked, we had tried to settlement between the parties and especially for the reason there outstanding loan in sum of approximately `2.36 crore for the house and crore for the factory. The Bench had desired a solution where Navnit could be provided a decent residential accommodation commensurate her status in which she and her minor daughter could live and some monthly made available to her for sustaining herself, and by reciprocity she could agree that the shop and the factory could be de-sealed,

    to be used by her brother-in-law Raman Pal Singh, but unfortunately bitter are the relations between the parties that in spite of realising that a status quo would damage each one of them, they refused budge. Little realizing that if the Cholamandalam Investment and Company Limited enforces its right in the residential house for which August 26, 2014 the overdue amount was `2.36 crores, the house would be lost and if for the factory at Bahadurgarh the financial to which it was mortgaged also enforces the mortgaged, even the would be lost. We had expected Surinder Kaur and her son Raman Singh, who had also been accompanying her to the Court, to take the because they were in a dominant position, but it did not happen because two wanted reciprocity from Navneet as if she was in an equal position.

  10. Thus, we are constrained to decide the appeal on merits.

  11. Pithily stated, the question arising for the consideration of this revolves around the interpretation of the term ‗shared household envisaged under Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Violence Act, 2005 and if the present case stands squarely covered authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court of India reported (2007) 3 SCC 169 S.R Batra & Anr. v. Taruna Batra (Smt.).

  12. Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Act, 2005 reads as under:-

    “2 (s) “shared household” means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the

    respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household.”

  13. Learned Counsel for Ms.Surinder Kaur had contended that in the decision of the Supreme Court in Taruna Batra‟s case ( daughter-in-law, as the present appellant before us, is precluded under scheme of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 to claim a ‗right of residence‘ in a premises exclusively owned by her mother-in even though she has admittedly resided therein with her husband family members in a domestic relationship. He would thus submit impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from impropriety and is not liable to be interfered with in the present proceedings.

  14. Since Ms.Surinder Kaur has planked her submissions on the of the Supreme Court in Taruna Batra‟s case (Supra) and we find conclusion expressed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned also essentially premised on the said decision, it would therefore incumbent upon us to carefully examine the dictum in Taruna Batra‟s (Supra) with a view to ascertain the factual conspectus and the issues fell for consideration of the Supreme Court, in order to appreciate observations contained in the said judgment.

  15. A microscopic analysis of the said decision would reveal Ms.Taruna Batra was married to the son of S.R.Batra and his wife on 14, 2000. After the marriage the couple started residing together and wife at second floor, B-135, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi. It was dispute that the said property exclusively belonged to S.R.Batra‘s wife the mother-in-law of Taruna Batra. It would be pertinent to note S.R.Batra and his wife resided separately on the ground floor of the

    property. It was an admitted position that Ms.Taruna Batra had shifted to the residence of her parents owing to matrimonial acrimony with her husband. It was only much later that she sought to re-enter the suit property only to find a lock at the main entrance. In wake of such attending circumstances, filed a suit seeking mandatory injunction to enable her to enter the house. was the case of S.R.Batra and his wife before the Supreme Court and Courts below that before any order came to be passed in the said Ms.Taruna Batra along with her parents forcibly broke open the locks of the suit property. It was also contended by S.R.Batra and his wife that their – Amit Batra, the husband of Taruna Batra, had shifted to his own Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad before the litigation between the parties ensued.

  16. Perusal of the judgment further reveals that the learned Trial vide order dated March 04, 2003, had held that Ms.Taruna Batra possession of the suit property and consequently granted injunction in her favour. The said order of the learned Trial Judge assailed in appeal before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Delhi, who order dated September 17, 2004 held that Ms.Taruna Batra was not in the second floor of the suit premises and also observed that her husband Amit Batra was not living in the suit property, therefore, the home could not be said to be a place where only the wife was Laying a challenge to the order of the Appellate Court, Ms.Taurna invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court by filing a petition Article 227 of Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge of this was pleased to hold that the second floor of the suit property was matrimonial home of Ms.Taruna Batra and...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT