Ms. Krishna & Anr. vs Smt. Shoma Devi
2014 Latest Caselaw 1350 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         RSA No.78/2014

%                                                    12th March, 2014

MS. KRISHNA & ANR.                                        ......Appellants
                          Through:       Ms. Puja Dewan, Advocate.


                          VERSUS

SMT. SHOMA DEVI                                            ...... Respondent
                          Through:

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA


To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

C.M. No.4701/2014 (exemption)

1.           Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

             C.M. stands disposed of.

+ RSA No.78/2014 and C.M. No.4700/2014 (stay)

2.           This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed against the judgment of the first

appellate court dated 13.12.2013.




RSA No.78/2014                                                  Page 1 of 5
 3.              Trial court had decreed the suit for possession filed by the

plaintiff-mother against the appellants/defendants/daughters under Order 12

Rule 6 CPC inasmuch as the appellants/defendants admitted that mother was

the owner of the property and the only defence was that the

appellants/defendants were not licencees in the suit property as claimed by

the mother-plaintiff. Trial court rightly held the appellants/defendants to be

gratuitous licencees as they were accordingly allowed to stay in the suit

property only because they were daughters.          Trial court also refers to

harassment of mother-plaintiff by the appellants filing police complaints and

complaints to the State Commission for women.              Trial court has also

referred   to     the   fact   that   earlier   judgment    obtained   by      the

appellants/defendants was only of injunction against being dispossessed

without due process of law, and the subject suit was for dispossession of the

appellants/defendants in accordance as per the process of law of filing of the

suit for possession.


4.              The first appellate court has dismissed the appeal on account of

the same having been filed with delay of about six months i.e 170 days and

that no sufficient grounds were given giving reasons as to why this delay

was there and the same being sufficiently explained.

RSA No.78/2014                                                   Page 2 of 5
 5.            Ordinarily, Courts would consider liberally the issue of

condonation of delay, however, I have deliberately referred to the judgment

of the trial court on merits because the object of allowing condonation of

delay is to permit arguments on merits in a case where at least one

substantial argument would be urged on behalf of the appellants/defendants

for   being   considered    by   the   courts.     I   may    note   that     the

appellants/defendants, and probably deliberately, have not filed in this

appeal the written statement in the suit and which would have shown the

admission for the suit to be decreed under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. However,

counsel for the appellants/defendants has gone through the written statement

and has failed to point out to me any defence of any alleged family

settlement which is pleaded before this Court, and the said defence hence

being an entitlement of the appellants/defendants to stay in the suit property.

Therefore, once it is admitted that the respondent/plaintiff/mother is the

owner, and appellants were only gratuitous licencees on account of their

relationship with the respondent/plaintiff/mother, the suit for possession was

rightly decreed under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.


6.            So far as the judgment of the first appellate court is concerned,

it is seen that the first appellate court notes that the contention of the

RSA No.78/2014                                                  Page 3 of 5
 appellants/defendants being in ignorance of the suit being decreed under

Order 12 Rule 6 CPC on 30.3.2013 is misconceived because arguments were

heard on 28.3.2013 in the presence of the appellants. It is not that the

appellants are uneducated and illiterate persons. Also, the first appellate

court notes that appellants have otherwise been appearing in the court.

Accordingly, the first appellate court rejects the contention of the appellants

that they were not aware of the passing of the judgment under Order 12 Rule

6 CPC dated 30.3.2013 on the subsequent dates fixed before the trial court

i.e 9.5.2013 and 10.7.2013. Appeal alongwith application for condonation

of delay was filed on 19.10.2013 against the judgment dated 30.3.2013.


7.           I do not find any illegality in the conclusions arrived at by the

first appellate court of sufficient cause not existing for condoning the delay,

more so in the facts of the present case when it is more than clear that the

appellants/defendants have no defence on merits. As already stated, the

judgment of the trial court under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC notes that various

police complaints and complaints to the State Commission for Women were

filed by the appellants/defendants against the mother and which show their

inter se strained relations and the requirement to file the subject suit for

possession against the appellants/defendants.

RSA No.78/2014                                                 Page 4 of 5
 8.           In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal, and the

same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.




MARCH 12, 2014                         VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

Ne