Kamla Sharma v. Cmwati

Delhi High Court · 22 Jul 2016 · 2016:DHC:9192
Valmiki J. Mehta
RSA 181/2016 and RSA 183/2016
2016:DHC:9192
civil appeal_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeals for lack of proof of title transfer and granted the appellant three years to vacate the disputed property under specified conditions.

Full Text
Translation output
$-18 and 20 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
RSA 181/2016 and C.M.Appl.Nos.25748/2016(forstay)
KAMLA SHARMA Appellant
Through: Mr. Arvind Pandey and Ms.Priyanka Awasthi,Advocates.
VERSUS
CMWATI Respondent
RSA 183/2016 and C.M.Appl.No.25843/2016(for stay)
KAMLA SHARMA Appellant
Through: Mr. Arvind Pandey and Ms.Priyanka Awasthi,Advocates.
VERSUS
OMWATI& ANR Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA
22.07.2016 S C.M.Appl.No.25749/2016 in RSA 181/2016
C.M.Appl.No.25844/2016 in RSA 183/2016 Exemptions allowed,subjectto alljust exceptions.
The applications stand disposed of.
RSA 181/2016andRSA 183/2016 page1of3 2016:DHC:9192
RSA 181/2016
RSA 183/2016
ORDER

1. The appeals have been heard at length. It is seen that appellant/daughter-in-law claims that she purchased the suit property from the respondent/plaintiff/mother-in-law, but the courts below have rightly held that not a single document has been filed, much less a registered one, showing transfer oftitle ofthe suit property by the respondent/plaintiffin favour ofthe appellant/defendant. I may also note that the courts below have held that even assuming no document is required,yet,appellant/defendant has failed to prove passing ofsale consideration to the respondent/plaintiff.

2. At this stage, counsel for the appellant/defendant on instructions from the appellant/defendant, who is present in person, and the matter was passed over for the appellant/defendantto consider the matter, states that, appellant/defendant does not press these appeals on merits but appellant/defendant be given a period ofthree years to vacate the suit property. Considering that appellant/defendant is claiming to be the daughter-in-law of the respondent/plaintiff and which issue I am not deciding in these appeals, inasmuch as, these issues would come up in other appeals which the appellant/defendant proposes to file, inasmuch as, the impugnedjudgment had decided five appeals,and these are only two appeals with respect to five appeals decided by the first appellate court, I grant a period of three years to the appellant/defendant and the appellant/defendantshould vacate the suit premises on or before RSA 181/2016andRSA 183/2016 page2of[3] 31.7.2019. It IS,however,made clearthatthe appellant/defendant in no manner will cause nuisance or harass the respondent/plaintiff/mother-in-law and will live peacefully in the suit premises till the same is vacated by her. Besides, the appellant/defendantvacatingthe suit premiseson or before 31.7.2019, appellant/defendant will ensure that the appellant/defendant regularly/every month clear all charges with respectto civic amenities provided in the suit property towards electricity, water,etc. Subject to the appellant/defendant filing an affidavit of undertaking in this Courtin terms ofthe present order within two weeks,the appeals are disposed of as not pressed and time is granted to the appellant/defendant to vacate the suit premises on or before 31.7.2019.

4. The appealsstands disposed ofaccordingly. »» VALMIKIJ.MEHTA,J JULY 22,2016 ^K. -- 'I j19"