Tue. Sep 22nd, 2020

Anil Gulati vs Promila Gulati on 21 July, 2015

2 min read

1. The dispute in the present appeal is between the son of Late
Sh.Kishan Lal Gulati and the daughter-in-law of Late Sh.Kishan Lal Gulati.
2. The genealogy tree of the family of Late Sh. Kishan Lal Gulati is as
under:-
4. Needless to state, Ms.Promila Gulati was the plaintiff and her brother-
in-law was the defendant in the suit. In our decision we shall be referring to
the parties by their nomenclature in the suit.
5. In essence, it was pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff is the absolute
owner of the suit property by virtue of a registered Gift Deed dated
September 03, 1984 executed by her father Late Sh.K.B.Midha. She
pleaded that the suit property consisted of a ground, first, second and a
mezzanine floor and a terrace. She pleaded that the plaintiff along with her
children resides on the ground floor of the property. She further pleaded
that on account of close family relation between the plaintiff and defendant,
as also the fact that the defendant did not own any residential property, the
plaintiff allowed the defendant to reside with his wife and children on the
first, second and mezzanine floors of the property. She pleaded that no rent
was being charged, the possession was permissive and thus the status of the
defendant in the suit property was that of a mere licensee. She pleaded that
on two occasions she terminated the license of the defendant to reside in the
suit property, firstly orally in the year 2009 and thereafter by way of a legal
notice dated May 03, 2010, but the defendant failed to vacate the suit
property, which constrained the plaintiff to file the suit in question.
Mandatory injunction sought was that the defendant should remove all his
belongings from the suit property. Permanent injunction sought was that the
defendant be permanently restrained from creating any third party interest in
the suit property, parting with possession of the suit property in favour of
any third party and interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in

the suit property. In addition thereto, the plaintiff also sought a decree
against the defendant for a sum of `50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only)
per month for having illegally occupied the suit property from the date of
filing of suit till its realization.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply