Sushma v. Ved Kumar

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 6376 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision : 19.12.2016 Sushma ....Appellant

Versus

Ved Kumar ....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

Present:

Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate for the appellant.

Surinder Gupta, J.

Ved Kumar, plaintiff-respondent, purchased the house in dispute bearing no. 806 (Old 269), Makhan Wali Gali, Garha, Jalandhar, measuring 3.5 marlas from its owners Ranju Bala, Bharti and Parvesh Kumar Rao and filed suit for possession of the house against Sushma, defendant-appellant, who is wife of one of the sellers Parvesh Kumar Rao. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar decreed the suit and also restrained the defendant-appellant form raising any kind of construction; demolish construction or to transfer possession of suit property to some other person except the plaintiff. Defendant-appellant filed appeal, which was also dismissed by Additional District Judge, Jalandhar. 2.

Not satisfied, defendant-appellant has filed this regular second appeal against concurrent judgments and decrees passed by Courts below. 3.

Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the findings of Courts below on two grounds. Firstly, that the appellant is wife of Parvesh Kumar Rao and is living in the house in dispute being her matrimonial house and the same was sold by her husband alongwith his sisters in order to oust the defendant-appellant and her daughter, who have right of

-2residence in this house. Proceedings have been initiated by the defendantappellant against her husband under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which are pending. Secondly, Kajal daughter of defendant-appellant also has share in the disputed house being a coparcener and by selling the disputed house Parvesh Kumar Rao and his sisters have violated her rights.

4.

It is a suit filed by Ved Kumar, who has purchased the suit property. Defendant-appellant claims right of residence and other matrimonial rights against her husband or family of the husband but not against Ved Kumar. She can certainly claim the right of residence in appropriate proceedings. However, the right of Ved Kumar, purchaser of the suit property to seek its possession is not restricted by the right of defendant-appellant, which she has against her husband or his other family members. Right of Kajal daughter of Parvesh Kumar Rao has also its independent existence. She can always challenge the sale made by her father if the property is joint Hindu family ancestral or coparcenary property. In this case neither Kajal nor husband of the appellant are parties. Points raised by learned counsel for the appellant cannot be adjudicated in this appeal. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that separate legal proceedings have been initiated by the defendant-appellant regarding her matrimonial rights including her right of residence. 5.

Courts below have decreed the suit as plaintiff-respondent is owner of this property and the defendant-appellant has no right to enforce against the plaintiff-respondent.

6.

On perusal of judgments of Courts below, I find no substantial question of law, requiring determination, arising in this appeal, which has

-3no merit.

7.

Dismissed.

8.

It is, however, made clear that nothing observed in this judgment shall have any bearing on the right of defendant-appellant to pursue the legal remedies available to her or the order passed in those proceedings.

December 19, 2016 ( SURINDER GUPTA) jk JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No