Kanika Monga vs Reema Monga
2012 Latest Caselaw 2646 Del

*          HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI

                                         Order decided on: 23.04.2012

+                           CS (OS) No.1939/2011

Kanika Monga                                          ..... Plaintiff
                            Through:     Mr. Parminder Singh Goindi
                                         Adv with Ms. Gurmeet Kaur
                                         Kapur Adv

                      Versus

Reema Monga                                             ..... Defendant
                            Through:     Ex parte


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

MANMOHAN SINGH, J. (ORAL)

1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant and her agents, restraining them from entering the suit properties bearing No. M-50, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi and H1 & H5 Main Market Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.

2. Summons were issued to the defendant. However, as no one appeared on her behalf despite service, by order dated 21.09.2011 defendant was proceeded ex-parte.

3. It would be necessary to take stock of certain fact as pleaded by the plaintiff as no written statement and version of the defendant has come on record. The same are:-

a) Plaintiff is the absolute owner of property bearing No. M-50, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi admeasuring about 300 sq yards. She is also one of the Director of the company situated at H1 & H5, Main Market, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. These properties are hereinafter called "Suit Properties"

b) Father in law (Late Sri Madan Lal Monga) of the plaintiff was the owner of the property bearing M50 Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, by virtue of a sale deed duly registered at duly registered at Sub Registrar‟s Office, Delhi, Registration No. 3407 in addl Book No. 255 on pages 277 to 286.

c) That by a Will dated 28.12.1997; he bequeathed the property at M-50, Rajouri Garden, alongwith all rights, title and interests in favour of the plaintiff. Letter of Administration in the Will was granted to the plaintiff vide order dated 17.02.2004 in probate case No. 33/2002.

d) The plaintiff has three sons namely Manish Monga, Sourabh Monga and Amit Monga. Both elder sons are residing with the plaintiff at M50, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.

e) The defendant is the daughter in law of plaintiff and wife of Amit Monga. That after marriage, Amit Monga and his wife/defendant used to reside with the plaintiff in the same house till 2005. Thereafter they both shifted to a new rented accommodation in Kirti Nagar, New Delhi.

f) Manish Monga and Sourabh Monga are also the Directors of M/s Appeal Kids Dream International Pvt Ltd. That husband of

defendant was also one of the Directors of the company but was removed from the post. He has resigned from company and has no interest whatsoever nor is he now a director of the company.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant from the very beginning was a consistent gambler and alcoholic. She used to gamble on cricket matches and spend huge amount of money on cards also.

5. It is alleged that the husband of the defendant is differently able (deaf and dumb) and the defendant has lot of influence over her husband and induced him to commit the fraudulent acts in the company. A complaint dated 23.11.2005 was lodged against Sh Amit Monga before the SHO, P.S. Rajouri Garden.

6. That after the husband of defendant was removed from the company, he did not work anywhere else. Due to financial requirements of the defendant being a habitual gambler, she soon started to borrow money from people representing herself to be the owner/ Director of the company. All the money was spent in gambling and she suffered heavy loss. Soon thereafter, the money lenders started coming to the suit premises to recover the money which the defendant had borrowed.

7. It is further submitted by the plaintiff that the defendant became bad to worse and she started coming home late mostly under the influence of alcohol. If the plaintiff or her sons ever objected and reprimanded the defendant, she used to be very abusive and violent. The situation was getting out of control as the defendant used to stand outside the house and hurl abuses which caused great embarrassment to the plaintiff‟s family in the neighbourhood.

8. The defendant shifted to a rental accommodation with her family so that the money lenders would not know her whereabouts. But, even after shifting, the defendant used to visit the residential property and extorted money. A publication dated 23.04.2007 was made in the newspaper „Statesman‟ wherein, the plaintiff severed all relationship ties with the defendant and her husband and disentitled them from the rights, title and interest in any of the assets of the plaintiff. It is stated that the rent of the defendant‟s accommodation is paid by the eldest son of the plaintiff Manish Monga alongwith other expenses like the education of the defendant‟s children. The elder son of the plaintiff pays approximately Rs. 1 lac towards the expenses of the defendant‟s family.

9. It is specifically mentioned in the plaint that on the night of 08.09.2009, the defendant came to the house of the plaintiff in a drunken condition and demanded money. The defendant even forcibly tried to enter into the premises and threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences, if her demands were not met. She also went to her parental house and demanded money from them. Defendant‟s mother and brother also lodged a complaint dated 10.09.2009 before DCP (West), New Delhi.

10. The plaintiff submits that the defendant from time to time has been visiting the business premises of the plaintiff at H1 and H5 Main Market, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, without anyone‟s permission and forcibly takes away things, thereby, creating a ruckus. The defendant also asked the plaintiff to transfer the residential property in her name

or else threatened that she will file a false complaint of domestic violence against her.

11. After the service of summons, the defendant got opportunity to raise her defence, but, she did not file the written statement. No one appeared before court when the matter was taken up by the plaintiff. Ex-parte evidence was filed. The following documents were filed and proved:

a. Ex- PW1/1 - The site plan of the property of M-50, Rajouri Garden , New Delhi.

b. Ex- PW1/2 - The Order dated 17.02.2004 in Probate Case No. 33/2002.

c. Ex- PW1/3 - The Rent Agreement of the defendant bearing no. F-72, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. d. Ex- PW1/4 - the complaint dated 23.11.2005 filed by the plaintiff against Sh. Amit Monga before the SHO, P.S. Rajouri Garden.

e. Ex- PW1/5 - Form 32 of the plaintiff‟s company. f. Ex- PW1/6 - A publication vide dated 23.04.2007 was published in The Statesman newspaper declaring that the defendant and her husband had no right, title on any of the assets of the plaintiff and all relationship is severed. g. Ex- PW1/7 - The bank statement showing that the elder son of the plaintiff is paying approx 1 lac towards the maintenance of the defendant.

h. Ex- PW1/8 - the Complaint dated 10.09.2009 filed by the plaintiff and also by the mother and brother of the defendant before the DCP (West), New Delhi. i. Ex- PW1/9 - The photographs taken by the plaintiff showing that the defendant had broken the window pane of plaintiff‟s house creating a nuisance. j. Ex- PW1/10 - The complaint dated 27.07.2011.

12. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and have also gone through the affidavit in ex-parte evidence of Kanika Monga i.e Plaintiff, Mr. Manish Monga, Mr. Gaurav Monga both residing at M-50, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi and Mr. Narendra Bharadwaj, S/o, Sh. Om Prakash Bharadwaj, residing at RZ-22/A, Indira Park. Gali No. 20, Palam Colony, Delhi, as well as the documents placed on the record. In evidence, the plaintiff has proved the averments made in the plaint and has also exhibited the relevant documents in support of its case. As no cross-examination of the plaintiff‟s witnesses was carried out, therefore, the evidence filed by the plaintiff has gone unrebutted. Therefore, the averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint are taken as correct deposition.

13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for a permanent injunction.

14. Accordingly, the prayer of the plaintiff in terms of paras

(a) and (b) of the prayer clause is allowed, which read as under:

"(a) Decree for permanent injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and her agents restraining them from entering the suit properties bearing No.M-50, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027, H1 and H5, Main Market, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027;

(b) Decree for permanent injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and her agents restraining them from disturbing the lawful possession of the plaintiff in the suit property bearing No.M-50, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027."

15. Decree be drawn accordingly by the Registry.

16. The suit and pending application stands disposed of.

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

APRIL 23, 2012