Delhi District Court
Savita Gautam vs Jyotsana Gautam And Anr on 18 May, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUBY NEERAJ KUMAR,
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-RENT CONTROLLER,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
RCA SCJ No. 11/2022
CNR: DLST03-001638-2022
Savita Gautam
W/o Sh. Ajay Gautam
R/o H. No. D-190B, Krishna Park,
Devli Road, New Delhi.
..........Appellant.
Versus
1. Jyotsana Gautam
W/o Sh. Lakhan Pal Gautam
R/o H. No. D-190B, Krishna Park,
Devli Road, New Delhi-110062.
2. Ajay Gautam
S/o Sh. Lakhan Pal Gautam
R/o H. No. D-190B, Krishna Park,
Devli Road, New Delhi-110062.
....Respondents
Date of institution of Appeal : 01.09.2022
Date of arguments : 30.04.2024
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 18.05.2024
JUDGMENT
1 This civil appeal arises out of the judgment/decree dated 20.07.2022, passed by the Ld. Civil Judge, South District, Saket, in Civil Suit No. 82771/2016. The suit was filed by the Respondent No.1/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff') against the Respondent No.2/Defendant No.1 & Appellant/Defendant No.2 (hereinafter referred to as 'defendant RCA No. 11/22 Savita Gautam vs. Jyotsana Gautam & Anr. 1 /18 No.1 & defendant No.2' respectively), for permanent and mandatory injunction, in respect of property bearing No. D- 190B, Krishna Park, Devli Road, New Delhi-110062 (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property').
2. Vide the said judgment, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed with costs and the defendants were directed to deliver the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within two months from the date of decree. Defendants were further restrained from creating any third-party interest in the suit property.
BRIEF FACTS
3. The case of the plaintiff before the Ld. Trial Court was that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of house bearing no. D- 190-B, Krishna Park, Devli Road, New Delhi-62. The plaintiff had purchased the suit property in the year 1987 and since then, she was residing therein with her husband and children. Plaintiff has two daughters and one son. The daughters are happily married and living with their families. The defendant no.1 and 2, being the son and daughter-in-law of the plaintiff were allowed to stay with the plaintiff, in the suit property, out of natural love and affection, after their marriage in February, 2002. However, with passage of time, the defendants became disrespectful towards the plaintiff & her husband and treated them with utmost cruelty. To lead a peaceful life in their own house, in their old age, plaintiff requested the defendants to leave the suit property. Despite knowing that the suit property is the self-acquired property of the plaintiff, instead of leaving the suit property, the defendants started threatening the plaintiff & her husband that they will RCA No. 11/22 Savita Gautam vs. Jyotsana Gautam & Anr. 2 /18 create third party interest in the same.
4. Due to the intolerable conduct of the defendants, plaintiff revoked the license of the defendants by sending a legal notice dated 19.11.2011 to the defendants, asking them to remove themselves from the suit property, which was duly served upon them. However, defendants failed to remove themselves from the suit property. Plaintiff did not want the defendants to continue to stay in the suit property and therefore, she had filed the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction seeking following reliefs: -
(a) Direct the defendants to remove themselves alongwith their child & belongings from the suit property.
(b) Restrain the defendants from creating any third-party interest in the suit property.:
5. Defendant no. 1 did not file any Written Statement. Defendant no.2 filed the Written Statement submitting that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff, in collusion & connivance with the defendant no.1, to dispossess the defendant no.2 from the suit property. It is submitted that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property and the GPA, Agreement to sell and affidavit filed by the plaintiff are not valid documents for transfer of title, hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable. It is submitted that 15 years prior to the date of marriage of the defendant no.1 & 2, the suit property was purchased by Late Sh. Mohar Pal Gautam i.e. father-in-law of the plaintiff and in the year 2000, it was constructed with the joint funds of Late Sh. Mohar Pal Gautam, Sh. Lakhan Pal Gautam & defendant no. 1 and the plaintiff being a house wife, never had RCA No. 11/22 Savita Gautam vs. Jyotsana Gautam & Anr. 3 /18 any income of her own.
6. It is further submitted that since the day of her marriage with the defendant no.1, defendant no.2 is residing at the suit property & it is her matrimonial house. Defendants are not licensee in the suit property as they are not living there with the permission of the plaintiff, in fact, the suit property belongs to the grand-father of defendant no.1. Defendant no.1 is an alcoholic & plaintiff herself had left him at Nasha Mukti Kendra in the first week of July,2013 and thereafter, in active collusion of defendant no.1 as well as her daughters, the plaintiff filed the suit.
7. In replication to the Written Statement, plaintiff reiterated the averments made in the plaint and denied the averments made in the Written Statement.
8. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 13.07.2015:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP.
3. Whether the present suit is not maintainable for want of cause of action? OPD2.
4. Whether the present suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD2.
5. Relief.
RCA No. 11/22 Savita Gautam vs. Jyotsana Gautam & Anr. 4 /18
9. Plaintiff led evidence in support of her case and primarily relied upon electricity and water bill of the suit property, which is Ex. PW-1/A, police complaints, which are Ex. PW-1/B, copy of reply to the legal notice dated 04.11.2011 sent by defendants alongwith postal envelope, which is Ex. PW-1/C, Original GPA, Affidavit, Agreement to sell & Receipt, which are Ex. PW-1/D to Ex. PW-1/G. She was duly cross-examined by learned Counsel for the defendant no.2.
10. Defendant no. 1 failed to lead any evidence. However, defendant no.2 examined herself as DW-1 and relied upon copy of marriage card, which is Ex. DW-1/A, photocopy of marriage photograph, which is Mark DW-1/B, copy of Aadhar Card of defendant No.2, which is Ex. DW-1/C, copy of Aadhar card of son, which is Ex. DW-1/D, photocopy of photographs, which are Mark DW-1/E, copy of Birth Certificate of child, Ex. DW-1/F, copy of school ID card of son of defendant no.2, which is Ex.
DW-1/G.
11. Defendant no. 2 also examined Sh. Mustaq Ahmed as DW-2, in order to prove that GPA, Affidavit and Agreement to sell and receipt are forged and fabricated documents. Both the witnesses were duly cross-examined by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff.
12. The trial court decided the issues against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff, vide impugned judgment/decree dated 20.07.2022, primarily, on the ground that the defendants are merely licensee/permissive user in the suit property & the plaintiff has established her title over the suit property.
RCA No. 11/22 Savita Gautam vs. Jyotsana Gautam & Anr. 5 /18
13. The present appeal has been filed by the defendant no. 2 on the grounds that the plaintiff has failed to prove her title over the suit property as the documents placed on record by the plaintiff are defective and manufactured. The said documents are hit by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Suraj Lamps & Industries Private Limited vs. State of Haryana & Anr.; 183 (2011) DLT 1. It is argued that the suit property is the shared household/ matrimonial home of the defendant no.2 as she is in uninterrupted & settled possession of the suit property since the date of her marriage with the defendant no.1 and the suit has been filed by the plaintiff in collusion with defendant no. 1, in order to dispossess the defendant no.2. The defendant no. 1 intentionally & deliberately, neither filed his written statement nor contested the suit and he was proceeded ex- parte by the learned trial court on 7.01. 2017.
14. Plaintiff has refuted the contentions of the defendant no.2 and submitted that the plaintiff has made false assertions that the suit property was purchased by the grandfather of the defendant no.1 and constructed with the funds of Manohar Pal Gautam, Lakhan Pal Gautam & defendant no.1. No document or proof has been led by the defendant no.2 to prove the said claims. The plaintiff has succeeded to establish her title qua the suit property & defendants being licensee in the same, the suit has been rightly decreed by the learned Trial Court.
FINDINGS & DECISION
15. The entire case of the plaintiff is that the defendants are merely a licensee/permissive user in the suit property, owned by the plaintiff by virtue of the documents adduced in the evidence.
RCA No. 11/22 Savita Gautam vs. Jyotsana Gautam & Anr. 6 /18 Per contra, defendant no.2 has claimed that she has every right to stay in the suit property as it is shared household/ matrimonial house and the suit has been filed by the plaintiff in collusion with the defendant no.1. She has further challenged the authenticity of the property documents, placed on record by the plaintiff.
16. On the basis of the arguments advanced, the point for determination in the present appeal is that whether the plaintiff has been able to establish her title coupled with possession to the suit property, for the eviction of defendants being licensee or the defendant no.2 has the right to stay in the suit property, on the ground that it is shared household/ matrimonial house.
17. In support of her case, to prove her ownership qua the suit property, plaintiff has relied upon Ex. PW-1/D to Ex. PW-1/G i.e. the General Power of Attorney, Affidavit, Agreement to Sell & receipt, executed by one Sh. Babu Lal S/o Nawal Singh, in her favour. The main defence of the defendant no.2 is that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property and the said documents placed on record by the plaintiff to establish her ownership qua the suit property are forged & fabricated. The said assertion of the defendant no.2 is baseless and without any ground. No cogent evidence has been adduced by the defendant no.2 in support of the said claim. A bald assertion not supported by any convincing evidence cannot be relied upon. As far as the testimony of DW-2 is concerned, it does not assist the defendant no.2 in establishing her defence. Defendant no.2 has miserably failed to prove that DW-2 is the same person, who stood as witness in the property documents executed in favor of the plaintiff.
RCA No. 11/22 Savita Gautam vs. Jyotsana Gautam & Anr. 7 /18
18. As regards the assertion of defendant no.2 that the copy of the property documents i.e. the GPA, Agreement to Sell & Affidavit does not bear the signatures of the plaintiff, plaintiff has clearly explained that the said copies were made before the signatures of the plaintiff were appended on it and she had produced the original documents at the time of recording of her evidence, which bear her signatures. Thus, the said claim of the defendant no.2 does not hold any relevance as well.
19. Further, defendant no.2 has claimed that the suit property was purchased by the grandfather of the defendant no.1 and it was constructed with the joint funds of defendant no.1. The said claim as well, is not supported by any evidence or documents as admitted by defendant no.2 in her cross-examination. It is settled law that one who asserts, must prove. Thus, it was for the defendant no.2 to prove the said claim made by her but she has miserably failed to do so. Infact, plaintiff has deposed in her evidence that the suit property was constructed in the year 1987, when the defendant no.1 was seven-year-old and therefore, question of his contributing in the construction of the suit property does not arise.
20. Further, the submission made by the defendant no.2 that the plaintiff being a house wife could not have purchased the suit property is not convincing at all. Just because the plaintiff is a house wife does not mean that she cannot have any bank balance or money at her disposal. Even a house wife can have savings from the money given to her for the household expenditure & her own maintenance. Furthermore, it is settled law that in a suit for injunction, plaintiff is only required to show that she has a better RCA No. 11/22 Savita Gautam vs. Jyotsana Gautam & Anr. 8 /18 title than the defendants, coupled with possession. Possession of the plaintiff has not been disputed by the defendants. The plaintiff can, on the strength of her possession, resist interference from defendants, who have no better title than the plaintiff, to the suit property. Moreover, it is pertinent to observe that in a suit for permanent & mandatory injunction, filed by a parent against his/her son and daughter-in-law, the parent is only required to prove that he/she has better title qua the suit property. Reliance in this regard could be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as Sachin and Anr. vs Jhabbu Lal and Anr.; AIR 2017 Delhi 1 wherein it was observed as follows: -
"Where the house is self-acquired house of the parents, Son whether married or unmarried, has no legal right to live in that house and he can live in that house only at the mercy of his parents upto the time the parents allow. Merely, because the parents have allowed him to live in the house so long as his relations with the parents were cordial, does not mean that the parents have to bear his burden throughout his life".
21. Further, disputing the authenticity of the property documents, adduced in evidence by the plaintiff, learned Counsel for the defendant no.2 has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana;183 (2011) DLT 1 (SC) wherein, it was held that SPA/GPA/WILL transactions are not 'transfers' or 'sales' and that such transactions cannot be treated as completed transfers or conveyances. In light of the said judgment, there is no dispute about the proposition that execution of these documents may not be treated as a complete sale and concluded transfer of the property. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment of Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (Supra), itself held as under: -
RCA No. 11/22 Savita Gautam vs. Jyotsana Gautam & Anr. 9 /18 " .....they can continue to be treated as existing agreements of sale. Nothing prevents affected parties from getting registered Deeds of Conveyance to complete their title. The said `SA/GPA/WILL transactions' may also be used to obtain specific performance or to defend possession under section 53A of TP Act. If they are entered before this day, they may be relied upon to apply for regularization of allotments/leases by Development Authorities. We make it clear that if the documents relating to `SA/GPA/WILL transactions' has been accepted acted upon by DDA or other developmental authorities or by the Municipal or revenue authorities to effect mutation, they need not be disturbed, merely on account of this decision....."
22. Further, it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the judgment titled as Sunil Sharma vs. Uma Sharma, decided on 14.3.2014 in RFA No.166/2012 as under: -
"8. So far as the second argument is concerned, I may note that the respondent/plaintiff has proved her ownership by means of usual documentation being the agreement to sell, power of attorney etc which were exhibited as Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/4 by the trial court. These aspects have been mentioned in para 14 of the impugned judgment of the first appellate court. I may note that since the documents in this case are prior to 25.9.2001 when by Act 48 of 2001 the provision of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and other related provisions were amended, the documents will create rights as provided under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 of part performance and also as per Section 202 of the Contract Act, 1872. Even the Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr. 183 (2011) DLT 1 (SC) has held that these documents may not create strict ownership rights, however whatever rights of a decreetal transferor are created as per Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Section 202 of the Contract Act, 1872, the same are protected including devolution of rights if transferor had executed the Will in favour of the transferee. As against these documents which were filed on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff, the appellants/defendants have not filed any other documents to show a better title."
RCA No. 11/22 Savita Gautam vs. Jyotsana Gautam & Anr. 10 /18
23. Similarly, it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the judgment titled as Abdul Waqar & Anr. vs. Abdul Gaffar, decided on 1.6.2018 in RFA No.517/2017 as under: -
"A sale by GPA/Agreement to sell/Will as has been entered into in the present case stands protected as the same was executed prior to the rendering of the decision in Suraj Lamps and Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana and Anr., 183 (2011) DLT 1 (SC). As held in Maya Devi vs. Lalta Prasad AIR 2014 SC 1356, genuine transactions were not affected by Suraj Lamps (supra). In Maya Devi (supra), Justice V. Sen while concurring the main judgment observed that the Suraj Lamps (supra) judgment was poignantly prospective"
24. Further, it is well settled that the standard of proof in civil cases and criminal cases is different. In civil proceedings, a mere preponderance of probability is sufficient, and the defendant is not necessarily entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt. The plaintiff in a civil suit has to merely establish his case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act states that a fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the court either believe it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. The belief regarding the existence of a fact may thus be founded on a balance of probabilities. The court has to weigh the conflicting probabilities and decide whether the preponderance is in favour of the fact asserted by the plaintiff. Thus, if the evidence of the plaintiff outweighs that of the defendants and persuades the court to believe the same to be more probable and truer than that of the defendants, then it can be held that the plaintiff has proved her case by preponderance of RCA No. 11/22 Savita Gautam vs. Jyotsana Gautam & Anr. 11 /18 probability. Reference in this regard could be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Dr. N.G. Dastane vs. Mrs. S. Dastane; (1975) 2 SCC 326.
25. Similarly, in the judgment titled as R. V. E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple; AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 4548, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
" ......Being a civil case, the plaintiff cannot be expected to prove his title beyond any reasonable doubt; a high degree of probability lending assurance of the availability of title with him would be enough to shift the onus on the defendant and if the defendant does not succeed in shifting back the onus the plaintiff's burden of proof can safely be deemed to have been dis- charged....."
26. Judging on the touchstone of the above noted facts, circumstances, evidence adduced, title documents in favour of the plaintiff i.e. GPA, Agreement to Sell & Affidavit and the dictums of the Superior Courts, it can safely be held that the plaintiff has proved by the preponderance of probabilities that she has a better title to the suit property coupled with possession as against the defendants and the necessary corollary to it is that defendants came in possession of the suit premises having being inducted as a licensee by the plaintiff.
27. Now the question that remains for consideration is whether the defendant no.2 has any right to stay in the suit property, it being claimed to be shared household/matrimonial house. It is asserted by the defendant no.2 that she is residing in the suit property since the day of her marriage and therefore, it is her matrimonial house/ shared household. It is further submitted that RCA No. 11/22 Savita Gautam vs. Jyotsana Gautam & Anr. 12 /18 the plaintiff has filed the suit in the collusion with her son i.e defendant no. 1, in order to deprive the legal right of residence of the defendant no.2 in the suit property.
28. Before proceeding to decide the questions noted above, it is pivotal to understand the Statutory Scheme of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The jurisdiction of a Civil Court to adjudicate upon matters pertaining to the right of a daughter-in-law to reside in a shared household/matrimonial house is enunciated under section 26 (1) of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'DV Act') as under:
"(1) Any relief available under sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 may also be sought in any legal proceeding, before a civil Court, family Court or a criminal Court, affecting the aggrieved person and the respondent whether such proceeding was initiated before or after the commencement of this Act."
29. The terms 'aggrieved person, 'domestic relationship' & 'shared household' have been defined under section 2 (a), 2 (f) & 2 (s) of the DV Act respectively, as follows:
" (a) 'aggrieved person' means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent;
(f) 'domestic relationship' means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family;
(s) shared household means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the RCA No. 11/22 Savita Gautam vs. Jyotsana Gautam & Anr. 13 /18 aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household;"
30. The law with respect to the shared household and right of the daughter-in-law to reside in the shared household viz-a-viz right of the parents in law to enjoy their self-acquired property was laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Satish Chander Ahuja vs. Sneha Ahuja; AIRONLINE 2020 SC 784 as under:
"53. After noticing the ratio of above judgments, Section 2(s), which uses both the expressions "means and includes" and looking to the context, we are of the view that the definition of shared household in Section 2(s) is an exhaustive definition. The first part of definition begins with expression "means"
which is undoubtedly an exhaustive definition and second part of definition, which begins with word "includes" is explanatory of what was meant by the definition. Shri Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that even if it is accepted that the definition of Section 2(s) is exhaustive, his case is fully covered in both the parts of the definition.
54. The use of both the expressions "means and includes" in Section 2(s) of Act, 2005, thus, clearly indicate the legislative intent that the definition is exhaustive and shall cover only those which fall within the purview of definition and no other.
55. Now, reverting back to the definition of Section 2(s), the definition can be divided in two parts, first, which follows the word "means" and second which follows the word "includes". The second part which follows "includes" can be further sub- divided in two parts. The first part reads "shared household means a household where the person aggrieved has lived or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent". Thus, first condition to be fulfilled for a shared household is that person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship. The second part sub-divided in two parts is- (a) includes such a household RCA No. 11/22 Savita Gautam vs. Jyotsana Gautam & Anr. 14 /18 whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent and owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and (b)includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household. In the above definition, two expressions, namely, "aggrieved person" and "respondent" have occurred. From the above definition, following is clear:- (i) it is not requirement of law that aggrieved person may either own the premises jointly or singly or by tenanting it jointly or singly; (ii) the household may belong to a joint family of which the respondent is a member irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household; and (iii) the shared household may either be owned or tenanted by the respondent singly or jointly."
31. Reverting to the facts of the case at hand, it is not disputed that the defendant no. 2 is residing at the suit property, since the solemnization of her marriage with defendant no.1. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of Satish Chander Ahuja (Supra), it can be said with certainty that the suit property is the shared household/ matrimonial house of the defendant no.2.
32. The question that arises for consideration at this juncture is whether the defendants have the right to stay in the suit property, merely for the reason that it is a shared household. The answer is in negative and the reasons for the same are cited henceforth.
33. Before claiming right of residence in the shared household, the daughter-in-law is required to establish, not only that the suit property is shared household and she is in domestic relationship with the plaintiff/respondent but also that she is an 'aggrieved person' within the purview of section 2 (a) of the DV Act. As per RCA No. 11/22 Savita Gautam vs. Jyotsana Gautam & Anr. 15 /18 the said provision, an aggrieved person is the one, who has been subjected to domestic violence by the respondent, while being in domestic relationship. In the instant case, defendant no.2 has not cited even a single incident, where she has been subjected to domestic violence by the plaintiff or defendant no.1. Defendant no.2 has merely stated that the defendant no.1 is an alcoholic and the plaintiff supports him, which by no means can amount to domestic violence. Further, admittedly, neither any petition under the DV Act has been filed by the defendant no.2 against the plaintiff or defendant no.1 nor is there any other matrimonial/legal proceedings initiated by the defendant no.2 against the plaintiff/defendant no.1. In light of the same, the claim of the defendant no.2 that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff in collusion with her son i.e. defendant no.1, also, does not inspire the confidence of this court and it seems to be a feeble attempt to defeat the case of the plaintiff. Thus, in the absence of any domestic violence being inflicted upon the defendant no.2 by the plaintiff, defendant no.2 can not be called to be an 'aggrieved person' and consequently, she cannot claim any right of residence in the suit property, irrespective of it being a shared household.
34. In the judgment of Satish Chandra Ahuja (Supra.), it was further observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the right of residence of a daughter-in-law in a shared household is not an indefeasible right in following words:
"83. Before we close our discussion on Section 2(s), we need to observe that the right to residence under Section 19 is not an indefeasible right of residence in shared household especially when the daughter-in-law is pitted against aged father-in-law and mother-in-law. The senior citizens in the evening of their life are also entitled to live peacefully not haunted by marital discord between their son and daughter-
RCA No. 11/22 Savita Gautam vs. Jyotsana Gautam & Anr. 16 /18 in-law. While granting relief both in application under Section 12 of Act, 2005 or in any civil proceedings, the Court has to balance the rights of both the parties. The directions issued by High court in paragraph 56 adequately balances the rights of both the parties.
84. In view of the foregoing discussions, we answer issue Nos. 1 and 2 in following manner:-
(i) The definition of shared household given in Section 2(s) cannot be read to mean that shared household can only be that household which is household of the joint family of which husband is a member or in which husband of the aggrieved person has a share.
(ii) The judgment of this Court in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra) has not correctly inter-preted Section 2(s) of Act, 2005 and the judgment does not lay down a correct law."
35. In view of the above discussed facts & circumstances, evidence adduced and the legal principles, it can be held that the plaintiff has been able to establish a better right & title to the suit property to claim injunction against the defendants and the defendants have no right to stay in the suit property. There is no illegality, impropriety or ambiguity in the judgment of the Ld Trial Court. I do not find any merit in the present appeal. Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed.
36. However, on a concluding note, the appellant & respondent No.2 are given 6 months period from the date of this judgment to vacate the suit property, in order to enable the appellant to seek appropriate remedy under the law against the respondent no.2, if any, as he being the husband is under a legal obligation to maintain the appellant & their son born out of the wedlock.
37. Trial Court Record be sent back to the court concerned.
RCA No. 11/22 Savita Gautam vs. Jyotsana Gautam & Anr. 17 /18
38. Appeal file be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance. Digitally signed RUBY by RUBY NEERAJ NEERAJ KUMAR Announced in the open court Date:
KUMAR 2024.05.18 on 18.05.2024 16:09:57 +0530 (Ruby Neeraj Kumar) SCJ-cum-RC South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi RCA No. 11/22 Savita Gautam vs. Jyotsana Gautam & Anr. 18 /18