REKHA OBEROI [ Plaintiff]  Vs. AMIT OBEROI [Defendant]

CS(OS) 366/2020

(CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)

Facts: It is an unfortunate case where a mother in her hay days of life, is compelled by the alleged ill treatment at the hands of her own daughter-in law and son, whom she singlehandedly brought up after having lost her husband at a young age, and to seek peace and security of Home by filing this suit for partition against her son.

Issue: Whether the relief in favour of the plaintiff can be granted in the present petition?

Arguments on behalf of counsel for plaintiff:

It is submitted in the application that the plaintiff has filed the Suit for Partition, Permanent Injunction and the Rendition of Accounts against her son, the defendant herein in respect of the suit property. It is submitted that the defendant and his wife have been harassing the plaintiff and given beatings to her in her old age for which the plaintiff has made various complaints against him. The apology letter has also been written by the defendant. It is further asserted that the defendant in his Written Statement has taken a contrary stand, but in his affidavit of admission/denial, has admitted the Settlement Deed dated 13.05.1998 executed by the Grandmother in favour of all the family members and also the Relinquishment Deed dated 18.01.2010 executed by Ms. Pallavi/ daughter in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant.On the basis of aforesaid admissions, the plaintiff seeks a decree of partition entitling the plaintiff as well as the defendant to 50% share each in the suit property.

Arguments on behalf of counsel for defendant:

The present application has been contested by the defendant by way of his Reply, wherein he has claimed that the present Suit is an endeavour by the plaintiff to grab the suit property as she only has a right to reside but has no legal right, title and interest of any kind in the suit property. The defendant is the owner and in possession of the suit property. Therefore, in the absence of right, title and interest in the suit property, the plaintiff is not entitled to any partition.

Held: The court held that, “While the intention of the legislature under Section 15(1) of the Act, 1956 may have been bona fide; however, the present case is demonstrative of how Section 15(1) of the Act,1956 unfortunately, works against the woman herself i.e. the widow of a pre-deceased son. Merely because a case appears to be hard, it cannot permit the invocation of a different interpretation of a statutory provision which is otherwise impermissible. It is now a well settled principle of law that sentiment or sympathy alone would not be a guiding factor in determining the rights of the parties which are otherwise clear and unambiguous as observed by the Apex Court in Omprakash vs Radhacharan, (2009) 15 SCC 66. This Court, therefore, has no option but to interpret Section 15 of the Act, 1956 as it exists, even if it is unjust towards the plaintiff.”