RAVNEET KAUR
Vs.
PRITHPAL SINGH DHINGRA
RFA 832/2018 & CM APPLN No. 54495/2019
(2022) AIR(Delhi) 55 : (2022) 2 CivCC 186 : (2022) 288 DLT 269
Facts of this case:
The respondent herein claims to be an absolute and sole owner of the property.
He filed a suit for eviction against the defendant viz. his daughter-in-law.
A decree of possession with damages equivalent to the market rent of the alleged illegal possession was passed against the appellant and also a decree of permanent injunction to restrain her from creating any third party right in such property.
It is the case of the appellant she being a legally wedded wife of respondent's son has been residing with her two minor daughters in one room with an attached bathroom and a balcony in the suit property, marked in the site plan.
Main Plea in this case:
S. Kesar Singh (grandfather of the appellant's husband) purchased a property in the location of New friends Colony, New Delhi out of joint family property and this sale proceeds of the ancestral property.
After the death of S. Kesar Singh, the After the death of S. Kesar Singh, the respondent and his siblings inherited the New Friends Colony property and other family businesses of his late father. In the year 2004 the respondent sold his share in the aforesaid property and out of such sale proceeds he purchased the subject property.
The Trial Court dismissed the application as S.Kesar Singh, the Karta of S. Kesar Singh and Sons (HUF) died in the year 1977 but her husband was born in the year 1976 and hence he became a coparcener of the said HUF created by his grandfather.
Admittedly no appeal was filed against such order.
Hence, S. Kesar Singh had purchased the New Friends Colony property out of joint family funds and from sale proceeds of the ancestral property and after the death of S. Kesar Singh the subject property was purchased by the respondent from such ancestral funds, hence the suit property is a joint family property in which the appellant has also a right to reside.
Observation:
Delhi High Court opined that the subject property belong to the respondent and the appellant on the contrary did not file any documents to support the claim of the existence of any HUF.
As it is a self-acquired property in which the appellant and respondent had been residing in a shared household even though the husband and wife had been living separately
Also, High Court noted a significant point: “Admittedly where the parties are residing is a flat, having only three bedrooms, a drawing room and the appellant is in possession of a room in the said flat, then considering there are various complaints filed by them against each other; their relations being not cordial, would it in such circumstances, be appropriate for them to stay together and fight every minute of their existence.”
Bench remarked that, in this case, both (father-in-law and mother-in-law) being senior citizens of age about 74 and 69 years and are entitled to have and live peacefully and being in the constant haunting image of the marital friction between their son and daughter-in-law. Elaborating further, the High Court added that, where the residence is a shared household, it does not create any embargo upon the owner to claim eviction against his daughter-in-law.
Bench advised that since there was friction in the relationship between the parties, hence it would be appropriate if an alternative accommodation is provided to the appellant as per Section 19(2)(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
Comments