The Allahabad High Court has dismissed two First Appeals filed by a woman against a decree directing her to vacate a flat in Noida and pay mesne profits, affirming that the husband, being the sole owner, had the right to transfer the property and that a suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable against a licensee after the termination of the license.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Prakash Padia in the case titled Sonu Sirohi v. Pushpendra Singh Sirohi And Another (First Appeal No. 317 of 2019 connected with First Appeal No. 320 of 2019). The appeals challenged the common judgment and decree dated December 11, 2018, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautam Budh Nagar.
Background of the Dispute
The litigation involved two cross-suits concerning Flat No. 1201, Ground Floor, ATS Green Village, Noida.
Original Suit No. 1199 of 2009: Instituted by Pushpendra Singh Sirohi (Plaintiff No. 1/Husband) and Smt. Poonam Agarwal (Plaintiff No. 2/Purchaser) against Smt. Sonu Sirohi (Appellant/Wife). The plaintiffs sought a mandatory injunction directing Smt. Sonu Sirohi to vacate the flat and pay mesne profits. The husband contended that he was the sole owner of the flat via a tripartite agreement executed in 2006. He claimed the appellant was granted a license to collect rent, which was revoked on November 17, 2009. Subsequently, the husband sold the flat to Smt. Poonam Agarwal via a transfer deed dated March 25, 2011.
Original Suit No. 1187 of 2011: Filed by Smt. Sonu Sirohi against the husband, the purchaser, ATS Infrastructure, and Noida Authority. She sought a permanent injunction against eviction and a declaration that the transfer deed dated March 25, 2011, was void. She claimed the flat was purchased using joint funds, including her stridhan, and asserted rights under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The Trial Court consolidated the suits, decreeing the suit for eviction and damages in favor of the plaintiffs while dismissing Smt. Sonu Sirohi’s suit.
Arguments Raised
The appellant (Smt. Sonu Sirohi) raised several grounds in the appeal:
- Bar under Specific Relief Act: The suit for mandatory injunction was barred under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as an equally efficacious relief (suit for possession) was available.
- Joint Ownership: The flat was purchased out of joint funds, and thus the husband could not alienate it alone.
- Invalid Transfer: The sale deed was void as it was executed during the pendency of litigation and domestic violence proceedings, allegedly to circumvent her rights.
- Excessive Damages: The award of Rs. 60,000 per month as damages was unjust compared to her maintenance allowance.
The respondents contended that the appellant was a licensee whose license was validly terminated. They argued that the husband was the sole owner, having financed the property through a bank loan, and that the sale to Plaintiff No. 2 was valid after due diligence.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
1. Maintainability of Suit for Mandatory Injunction: The High Court rejected the appellant’s preliminary objection regarding Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act. Relying on the Supreme Court judgments in Sant Lal Jain v. Avtar Singh (AIR 1985 SC 857) and Bharat Bhushan Gupta v. Pratap Narain Verma ((2022) 8 SCC 333), the Court held that a licensor can seek a mandatory injunction for possession from a licensee after terminating the license.
The Court observed:
“The learned trial Court, after appraisal of evidence recorded findings that the plaintiff no. 1 of suit no. 1 has permitted appellant to collect rent as an agent and to enter and exit the premises for limited purpose only… permission for revocation was granted on 17.11.2009 and thus she has no legal right to continue occupying the disputed flat in question.”
2. Ownership and Title: The Court affirmed the Trial Court’s finding that Pushpendra Singh Sirohi was the exclusive owner. The Court noted that the registered lease deed was exclusively in his name, and he had secured a loan from HSBC Bank to fund the purchase.
Regarding the appellant’s claim of financial contribution, the Court noted that she failed to appear for cross-examination despite repeated opportunities. Consequently, her affidavit in evidence could not be relied upon.
“No documentary evidence whatsoever has been adduced by the defendant of suit no.1 to establish that she has contributed in obtaining the transfer deed dated 16.6.2006 of flat in dispute.”
3. Validity of the Transfer Deed: The Court dismissed the argument that the transfer was illegal due to pending domestic violence proceedings. It noted that the “shared household” concept under the Domestic Violence Act is restricted to a single household, and evidence showed the existence of another flat (Flat No. 1083). The Court held that the purchaser (Plaintiff No. 2) had conducted due diligence, including executing an indemnity bond regarding the pending litigation.
“Since the plaintiff no. 1 is the sole owner of the disputed flat, having purchased it with his own funds and without any contribution from the appellant, he had full authority to execute a valid sale deed in favour of the plaintiff no. 2.”
4. Award of Damages: The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision to award damages/mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 60,000 per month. The Court found this amount reasonable as the flat was previously rented out for the same amount in 2009.
“Rs. 60,000/- per month is a fair measure of compensation for the loss suffered by the rightful owner (plaintiff no. 2) during the period of unlawful occupation by the appellant.”
Decision The High Court dismissed both First Appeals, affirming the judgment and decree dated December 11, 2018.
“The findings of facts recorded by the trial Court particularly relating to ownership and possession of immovable property should not be disturbed in appeal unless there is compelling reason to do so. In the present appeal, no compelling reason has been brought on record.”
The Registry was directed to return the original records to the lower court.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Sonu Sirohi v. Pushpendra Singh Sirohi And Another (First Appeal No. 317 of 2019 along with First Appeal No. 320 of 2019)
- Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- Judge: Justice Prakash Padia
