Delhi District Court
Rampal Singh vs Rameshpal @ Rinku And Ors on 22 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE-02, SHAHDARA DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Presided by : Varun Chandra, DJS
Civil Suit No: 1019/19
Sh. Rampal Singh
S/o Late Sh. Durgpal Singh
R/o H. No. D-229,Ground Floor,
Old Seemapuri, Delhi-110095
... Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. Rameshpal @ Rinku
S/o Sh. Rampal Singh
2. Sh. Seema
W/o Sh. Rameshpal Singh
Both R/o: - H. no. D-229, 1st Floor,
Old Seemapuri, Delhi-110095
... Defendants
SUIT FOR PERMANENT AND MANDATORY
INJUNCTION ALONGWITH FUTURE DAMAGES
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 27.08.2019
DATE OF FINAL ARGUMENTS : 16.12.2025
DATE OF DECISION : 22.01.2026
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants, seeking reliefs viz. (a) relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove their belongings and to handover the vacant possession of the Civil Suit No.1019/19 Digitally signed by Rampal Singh Vs. Rameshpal @ Rinku & Ors. VARUN VARUN CHANDRA Page No.1 of 20 CHANDRA Date: 2026.01.22 16:46:12 +0530 first and second floor of the suit property i.e. House no. D-229, Old Seemapuri, Delhi-110095 as shown in the red color in the site plan, (b) decree of permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendants from creating third party interest in respect of first and second floor of the suit property i.e. House no. D-229, Old Seemapuri, Delhi-110095 as shown in the red color in the site plan and (c) decree of damages at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per month against the defendants.
2. The exact prayer made by the plaintiff, in the plaint of this suit, is reproduced below:-
"(a) Pass a decree for mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant thereby directing the defendants to remove their belongings and to handover the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff as it was given at the time of permitting the defendants as licensee in the suit property i.e. House no. D-229, Old Seemapuri, Delhi-110095 which consists first floor consisting of two rooms and the second floor consisting of one hall room (more specifically shown in the red color in the site plan attached).
(b) Pass as decree for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, thereby restraining the defendants their agents, attorney, goons etc from handing over the possession or creating third party interest except the plaintiff in the suit property i.e. House no. D-229, Old Seemapuri, Delhi-110095 which consists first floor consisting of two rooms and the second floor consisting of one hall room (more specifically shown in red color in the site plan attached).
(c) Pass a decree of future damages in favour of the plaintiff and against the Civil Suit No.1019/19 Digitally signed by Rampal Singh Vs. Rameshpal @ Rinku & Ors. VARUN VARUN CHANDRA Page No.2 of 20 CHANDRA Date: 2026.01.22 16:46:31 +0530 defendants thereby directing the defendants to pay Rs.7,000/- p. m.
excluding other charges to the plaintiff towards future damages being unauthorized occupant in the suit property from the date of filing of the suit till decree.
(d) Pass any other or further orders(s) which this Hon'ble court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant."
3. In order to justify the grant of the aforesaid reliefs/prayer, the plaintiff has inter-alia pleaded in the plaint of this suit that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of property bearing House no. D-229, Old Seemapuri, Delhi-110095 ad measuring about 22 ½ sq. yards which is self acquired property; that the said property consist of a ground floor, the first floor, the second floor and the terrace portion; that the plaintiff was residing along with his children at house bearing no. C-789, Post Chikambarpur Shahid Nagar PS Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, U.P; that the defendant no. 1 is son of the plaintiff and the defendant no. 2 is daughter-in-law of the plaintiff and their marriage was solemnized on 11.12.1996; that the defendants often used to quarrel every single day on pretext or the other and the defendant no. 2 did not want to stay within the joint family; that the plaintiff tried his best to maintain harmony and the peace in the family and therefore, in the year, 2005, the plaintiff had shifted to his newly constructed floor at the house no C-796, Post Chikambarpur Shahid Nagar PS Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, U.P for some time; that the plaintiff asked the defendants to maintain the harmony and enjoy the marital life without any interference at C-789, Post Chikambarpur Shahid Nagar PS Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, Civil Suit No.1019/19 Digitally signed by VARUN VARUN Rampal Singh Vs. Rameshpal @ Rinku & Ors. CHANDRA CHANDRA Date: 2026.01.22 Page No.3 of 20 16:46:53 +0530 U.P; that in the year, 2014, the defendant no. 2 has left the matrimonial home without any reason and the defendant no. 1 asked the plaintiff to give him the keys for few days of the house bearing no. D-229, Old Seemapuri, Delhi which is lying vacant at that time; that the plaintiff handed over the keys of the said property and the defendant no. 2 along with children and defendant no. 1 came back to the matrimonial home after few days but the defendants did not return the keys of the suit property; that on 26.06.2015, the plaintiff had issued fragati in local newspaper severing all relationship with his son and asked the defendants to leave his house bearing house no. C-789, Post Chikambarpur Shahid Nagar PS Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, U.P but the defendant had requested the plaintiff to keep them as a licensee/permissive user at the said property on a monthly rent of Rs.5,000/-; that defendant no. 2 with malafide intentions had tried to implicate the plaintiff and his family members in false case and in respect of which the plaintiff had lodged the complaint in this regard before the SHO, PS Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, U. P; that in the month of June, 2016, the plaintiff asked the defendants to vacate the house of the plaintiff i.e. C-789, Post Chikambarpur Shahid Nagar PS Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, U.P; that the defendant no. 1 had requested the plaintiff to let him stay for only two months in the house of the plaintiff at Delhi bearing House no. D-229, Old Seemapuri, Delhi-110095; that the plaintiff had allowed the defendants to stay only on first floor of the said property on monthly rent of Rs.3500/- per month but when the defendants stated that they needed some more space as they had lot of luggage and furniture, the plaintiff allowed them as permissive user/licensee to stay on the first and second floor of the suit property on Civil Suit No.1019/19 Rampal Singh Vs. Rameshpal @ Rinku & Ors. VARUN Digitally signed by VARUN CHANDRA Page No.4 of 20 CHANDRA Date: 2026.01.22 16:47:35 +0530 monthly rent of Rs.7,000/- per month; that the defendants agreed to it and the defendants left the matrimonial home at UP in the first week of July, 2016; that in the month of September, 2016, the plaintiff had asked the defendants to vacate the suit property but the defendant had asked 6 months to vacate the same and the plaintiff had allowed the defendants; that after elapsing of said period, the plaintiff had given a verbal notice to the defendants to vacate the suit property, remove their belongings from the suit property and demanded damages from the defendants after May, 2017 at the rate of Rs.7,000/-; that despite termination of their licence, the defendants had neither vacated the suit property nor paid the damages to the plaintiff; that aggrieved by the actions of the defendants, the present suit for mandatory injunction, permanent injunction and damages has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff and against the defendants
4. Perusal of records reflects that the defendants were served on 27.09.2019 and had not tendered his appearance till 28.01.2020. Accordingly, on account of non-appearance of the defendant no. 1, the defendant no. 1 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 28.01.2020 by the Ld. Predecessor of this court.
5. Upon service of summons for settlement of issues of this suit, the defendant no. 2 has contested this suit. In order to contest this suit, the defendant no. 2 has inter-alia pleaded in her written statement that the marriage of the defendant no. 2 had taken placed with the defendant no. 1 on 11.12.1996; that after the marriage, the behavior of the defendant no. 1 and his family members was not good towards the defendant no.
Civil Suit No.1019/19
Rampal Singh Vs. Rameshpal @ Rinku & Ors. Digitally signed
by VARUN
Page No.5 of 20 VARUN CHANDRA
CHANDRA Date: 2026.01.22
16:47:45 +0530
2; that the defendant no. 1 did not take care of the defendant no. 2 and her minor children and also did not give any single penny to the defendant no. 2 and her minor children for their day to day necessity expenses; that the defendant no. 2 filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C against the defendant no. 1 which is disposed of by the Ld. Family Court, Karkardooma Court and directed the defendant no. 1 to pay Rs.8,000/- per month to the defendant no. 2; the present suit has been filed in collusion with the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 to grab the lawful right of defendant no. 2 to reside in her matrimonial house; that the plaintiff concealed the fact that the defendant no. 1 is the owner and landlord of the suit property bearing no. F-30, Dilshad Garden, Delhi and the plaintiff has three individual properties in his name i.e. D-229, Old Seemapuri, Delhi where the defendant no. 2 is residing along with her two minor children, C-789, Shaheed Nagar and one property is in village Farkhna, Zila Bulandsher, U.P; that the plaintiff in collusion with defendant no. 1 had prepared false papers and notice o debar while the defendant no. 1 is still residing in the suit property with the plaintiff; that all the matrimonial and household articles belongings, costly clothes, furniture and electronic items, jewellery of the defendant no. 2 are still lying since the day of marriage till now at the suit property; that the defendant no. 2 has no source of income and the defendant no. 2 and her two minor children are totally depending upon her parents and brother; that the defendant no. 1 is sole responsible to maintain the defendant no. 2 along with her two minor children and the defendant no. 1 is also legally responsible to provide residence to the defendant no. 2 and her two minor children but the false suit has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff; that the present suit is not maintainable Civil Suit No.1019/19 Rampal Singh Vs. Rameshpal @ Rinku & Ors. Digitally signed by Page No.6 of 20 VARUN VARUN CHANDRA CHANDRA Date: 2026.01.22 16:47:53 +0530 as the plaintiff has not come before this Hon'ble Court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts from this Hon'ble Court, hence, present suit is liable to be dismissed.
6. In the replication qua the written statement of the defendant no. 2, the plaintiff has denied the assertions made therein and reaffirmed the contents of the plaint.
7. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by this court on 23.02.2024:-
"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the plaintiff as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the present suit has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff in collusion with the defendant no. 1? OPD1
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining the defendants from creating any third party interest in the suit property? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mesne profits against the defendants directing them to pay Rs.7,000/- per month from the date of filing of this suit till the date of decree? OPP
5. Relief, if any."
Civil Suit No.1019/19 VARUN Digitally signed by Rampal Singh Vs. Rameshpal @ Rinku & Ors. VARUN CHANDRA Page No.7 of 20 CHANDRA Date: 2026.01.22 16:48:04 +0530
8. During the trial of this suit, two witnesses viz. PW1, Sh. Rampal Singh was examined in support of the case of the plaintiff and one witness viz. DW1, Smt. Seema were examined in support of the case of the defendants. The testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses are not being discussed, at this stage of this judgment, for the sake of brevity.
9. In order to adjudicate upon this suit, I had heard Sh. Tarun Malhotra, Ld. LAC for the plaintiff and Sh. B. K. Gautam, Ld. Advocate for the defendant no. 2 on 16.12.2025.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED : -
10. Ld. LAC for the plaintiff argued that the present matter has been filed for possession of the suit property along with the restraining the defendants from creating third party interest. He argued that the plaintiff has duly presented the ownership documents before this court.
11. Ld. LAC for the plaintiff argued that no objections has been filed by the defendants against the fargati. He argued that the photographs relied upon by the defendants does not prove the specific time and place. Further, he argued that the date has not been specified and the handwritten date mentioned on the said photographs is unrecognizable.
12 Ld. LAC for the plaintiff argued that the certificate U/s 65 B of IEA, 1872 cannot be relied upon as same has not been duly proved, and the specific criteria for said certificate has not been followed.Digitally signed
Civil Suit No.1019/19 VARUN by VARUN Rampal Singh Vs. Rameshpal @ Rinku & Ors.
CHANDRA CHANDRA Date: 2026.01.22 Page No.8 of 20 16:48:14 +0530 13 Ld. LAC for the plaintiff argued that vide evidence affidavit dated 11.09.2025, any disturbance by the plaintiff has not been mentioned in said affidavit and that the defendant no. 2 admitted in her cross that no disturbance has been made by the plaintiff in the present matter. He argued that the defendant no. 1 was debarred along time back and that defendant no. 2 has a separate residential accommodation available with her vide para 10 of her evidence affidavit.
14. Ld. LAC for the plaintiff argued that plaintiff gave permission to the defendants to live by way of licence which has been duly accepted by the defendant no. 2 in her cross. He submits that there has been no disturbance from the plaintiff and that cordial relations exists between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 2.
15. Ld. LAC for the plaintiff argued that defendant no. 2 failed to explain the capacity for which they are in possession and that the defendant no. 2 is an illegal occupant. He argued that the defendant had herself admitted that the plaintiff is the owner of suit property. He lastly argued that defendant no. 2 is her examination under Order 10 CPC had stated herself that the suit property is not a matrimonial home.
16. Per Contra, Ld. Advocate for the defendant no. 2 argued that the reliefs sought are separate as an injunction has been sought against defendant no. 2 along with damages. He argued that the photographs vide Ex.DW1/P3 do not require any proof as they were duly admitted by the plaintiff in his cross-examination.
Digitally signed by Civil Suit No.1019/19VARUN VARUN CHANDRA Rampal Singh Vs. Rameshpal @ Rinku & Ors.
CHANDRA Date: 2026.01.22 16:48:22 +0530 Page No.9 of 20
17. Ld. Advocate for the defendant no. 2 argued that the plaintiff debarred the defendant no. 1 without due declaration from court and same cannot be considered at this stage. He argued that the plaintiff in his cross-examination admitted that no MCD action has been taken on the suit property.
18. Ld. Advocate for the defendant no. 2 argued that the suit property is a matrimonial home as the plaintiff admitted living on the ground floor with son and family. He argued that no complaint has been filed by the plaintiff against the claims of harassment by the defendant no. 2.
19. Ld. Advocate for the defendant no. 2 argued that no written instrument for licence/permission to defendant no. 2 to live upon the suit property was furnished by the plaintiff in the present matter. He argued that defendant no. 2 never had to pay any encumbrance upon the suit property. He lastly submitted that the photographs furnished before this court show the family to be living together and thereby suit is not maintainable being a collusive suit.
20. The issue wise findings, in this case are as follows: -
ISSUE NO.1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the plaintiff as prayed for? OPP
21. The onus of proving the present issue lies upon the plaintiff.
Civil Suit No.1019/19Rampal Singh Vs. Rameshpal @ Rinku & Ors. VARUN Digitally signed by VARUN CHANDRA Page No.10 of 20 CHANDRA Date: 2026.01.22 16:48:34 +0530
22. In order to prove his case qua this issue, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 Sh. Rampal Singh in support of his case. Per contra, the defendant no. 2 has examined herself as DW1, Smt. Seema in support of her case.
23. During examination in chief, PW1, Sh. Rampal Singh has deposed in line with the plaint of this suit and tendered in evidence by way of affidavit, Ex.PW1/A, copy of Fargati (debarred notice) dated 26.06.2015, Mark A; copy of GPA dated 28.12.2011, Ex.PW1/2(OSR); copy of Will deed dated 27.12.2011, Ex.PW1/3(OSR); copy of Aadhaar card of the plaintiff, Ex.PW1/4(OSR); copy of complaint to SHO dated 18.01.2026, Mark B; information to DH, dated 22.06.2016, Ex.PW1/6; copy of affidavit dated 22.06.2015 to debar the defendant no. 2, Mark C and copy of Sale deed of property dated 16.09.2013 in favour of the defendant no. 2, Ex.PW1/8.
24. During the examination in chief, DW1, Smt. Seema has deposed in line with the written statement and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit, Ex.DW1/A, copy of said complaints, Mark A(Colly)(Running into page no. 30 to 36); copy of petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C, Mark B and copy of ex-parte judgment dated 23.10.2019, Mark C.
25. The plaintiff states that the suit property bearing no. House no. D-229, Old Seemapuri, Delhi-110095 as shown in the red color in the site plan was given to the defendant no. 1 and the defendant no. 2 on the basis of licence which was duly revoked by him given the conduct of the defendants. He claims that no rent was paid by the defendants Civil Suit No.1019/19 Rampal Singh Vs. Rameshpal @ Rinku & Ors. Digitally signed by Page No.11 of 20 VARUN VARUN CHANDRA CHANDRA Date: 2026.01.22 16:48:43 +0530 and defendant no. 2 failed to vacate the suit property despite due notice of revocation/termination of licence. He prayed for the possession of the suit property along with restraining the defendants from creating third party interest and damages/arrears of rent.
26. The defendant no. 2 has primarily contested the claims by claiming the suit property to be matrimonial home.
27. The the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja" AIRONLINE 2020 SC 784 had expanded the interpretation of the definition of "shared household" wherein the term "respondent" was stated to be including any relative of the husband in relation of the suit property. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide para 64 of the Judgment had overruled the prior interpretation laid down in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra:-
"64. In paragraph 29 of the judgment, this Court in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra) held that wife is only entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household and a shared household would only mean the house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband, or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member. The definition of shared household as noticed in Section 2(s) does not indicate that a shared household shall be one which belongs to or taken on rent by the husband. We have noticed the definition of "respondent" under the Act. The respondent in a proceeding under Domestic Violence Act can be any relative of the husband. In event, the shared household belongs to any relative of the husband with whom in a domestic relationship the woman has lived, the Civil Suit No.1019/19 Rampal Singh Vs. Rameshpal @ Rinku & Ors.
Page No.12 of 20 VARUN
Digitally signed by
VARUN CHANDRA
CHANDRA Date: 2026.01.22
16:48:50 +0530
conditions mentioned in Section 2(s) are satisfied and the said house will become a shared household. We are of the view that this court in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra) although noticed the definition of shared household as given in Section 2(s) but did not advert to different parts of the definition which makes it clear that for a shared household there is no such requirement that the house may be owned singly or jointly by the husband or taken on rent by the husband. The observation of this Court in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra) that definition of shared household in Section 2(s) is not very happily worded and it has to be interpreted, which is sensible and does not lead to chaos in the society also does not commend us. The definition of shared household is clear and exhaustive definition as observed by us. The object and purpose of the Act was to grant a right to aggrieved person, a woman of residence in shared household. The interpretation which is put by this Court in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra) if accepted shall clearly frustrate the object and purpose of the Act. We, thus, are of the opinion that the interpretation of definition of shared household as put by this Court in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra) is not correct interpretation and the said judgment does not lay down the correct law."
28. The defendant no. 2 at the time of her cross-examination had admitted the plaintiff to be the absolute owner of the suit property as well as the fact that suit property was granted to her for limited period only. Further, during her examination under Order 10 CPC, the defendant no. 2 herself stated that the defendant no. 1 never co-existed with her in the suit property for the entire duration of her stay. It is an admitted fact that the defendant no. 1 and the defendant no. 2 had Civil Suit No.1019/19 Rampal Singh Vs. Rameshpal @ Rinku & Ors. Digitally signed by Page No.13 of 20 VARUN VARUN CHANDRA CHANDRA Date: 2026.01.22 16:48:59 +0530 stayed upon property bearing no. C-798, Shaheed Nagar, Delhi after their marriage. The defendant no. 2 had herself stated that she resided upon the aforementioned address for a period of 20 years and entered the suit property with the help of local police given the physical harassment faced by her, in her examination under Order 10 CPC. Thereby, the definition of "shared household" does not find its applicability upon the present factual matrix.
29. The present suit for possession has been filed on the basis of availability of a better title in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants. As already stated that the defendant no. 2 herself had admitted that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property, further, solidifying his claim.
30. However, the court is of the opinion that it has to maintain equity between the parties. While the suit property cannot be regarded as a shared household; it is evident from the facts presented before this court that the defendant no.1 has completely discarded his responsibility towards the defendant no. 2. While it is true that it is the husband/defendant no.1 who has the responsibility towards the defendant no.2, the court has to ensure that the defendant no.2 is not rendered homeless and left on the streets.
31. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the Judgment of " Vinay Verma v. Kanika Pashricha" AIR 2020 (NOC) 512 (DEL) laid down certain guidelines wherein the right of parents to their peaceful property vis-a-vis daughter in law's right to residence were laid down. The Civil Suit No.1019/19 Digitally signed Rampal Singh Vs. Rameshpal @ Rinku & Ors. VARUN by VARUN CHANDRA Page No.14 of 20 CHANDRA Date: 2026.01.22 16:49:05 +0530 Hon'ble High Court vide para no. 46 held that :
"However, later decisions of various High Courts have, while giving divergent opinions on the concept of `shared household‟, followed one uniform pattern in order to protect the daughter-in-law and to provide for a dignified roof/ shelter for her. The question then arises as to whether the obligation of providing the shelter or roof is upon the in-laws or upon the husband of the daughter-in-law i.e., the son. Some broad guidelines as set out below, can be followed by Courts in order to strike a balance between the PSC Act and the DV Act:
1. The court/tribunal has to first ascertain the nature of the relationship between the parties and the son‟s/ daughter‟s family.
2. If the case involves eviction of a daughter in law, the court has to also ascertain whether the daughter-in-law was living as part of a joint family.
3. If the relationship is acrimonious, then the parents ought to be permitted to seek eviction of the son/daughter-in-
law or daughter/son-in-law from their premises. In such circumstances, the obligation of the husband to maintain the wife would continue in terms of the principles under the DV Act.
4. If the relationship between the parents and the son are peaceful or if the parents are seen colluding with their son, then, an obligation to maintain and to provide for the shelter for the daughter-in-law would remain both upon the in-laws and the husband especially if they were living as part of a joint family. In such a situation, Civil Suit No.1019/19 Rampal Singh Vs. Rameshpal @ Rinku & Ors. Digitally signed by Page No.15 of 20 VARUN VARUN CHANDRA CHANDRA Date: 2026.01.22 16:49:12 +0530 while parents would be entitled to seek eviction of the daughter-in-law from their property, an alternative reasonable accommodation would have to be provided to her.
5. In case the son or his family is ill-
treating the parents then the parents would be entitled to seek unconditional eviction from their property so that they can live a peaceful life and also put the property to use for their generating income and for their own expenses for daily living.
6. If the son has abandoned both the parents and his own wife/children, then if the son‟s family was living as part of a joint family prior to the breakdown of relationships, the parents would be entitled to seek possession from their daughter-in-law, however, for a reasonable period they would have to provide some shelter to the daughter-in-law during which time she is able to seek her remedies against her husband."
32. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide para 50 further held that:
"Though the present is a civil suit, this Court observes that the said two statutes i.e., the DV Act and the PSC Act, would have to be borne in mind while passing orders, maintaining the balance between two warring parties, namely the parents/in-laws and children/their families. The conflict between the rights of the parents and the rights of the daughter-in-law which have arisen out of the DV Act and the PSC Act requires to be resolved. The facts of each case are different as there could be cases where the parents or senior citizens do not wish Civil Suit No.1019/19 Rampal Singh Vs. Rameshpal @ Rinku & Ors. Digitally signed Page No.16 of 20 by VARUN VARUN CHANDRA CHANDRA Date: 2026.01.22 16:49:24 +0530 to permit their son and daughter-in-law to continue in their property due to issues of acrimony and misunderstanding. In such cases also, the provisions of the DV Act may be invoked by the son/daughter- in-law subjecting the parents to enormous suffering and frustration. While the right of residence of the daughter-in-law is to be recognized, the same also needs to be balanced depending upon the facts of each case with the right of the peaceful living of the parents as well. In several cases, these rights have conflicted with each other and they have flooded the Criminal and Civil Courts in abundance."
33. The plaintiff has been residing upon the suit property himself and the defendant no.2 were residing on the First and the Second Floor i.e. a joint family arrangement was present between the parties. Given that the plaintiff has himself left the suit premises a year ago due to the stated dilapidated condition of the suit property, he is hereby directed to provide an alternative accommodation to the defendant no.2 for a period of six months so as to provide an opportunity to defendant no.2 to seek appropriate remedies available to her.
34. In view of the aforesaid findings, the issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants on the stated conditions of providing alternative accommodation to defendant no.2 for the period of six months.
ISSUE NO.2 Whether the present suit has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff in collusion with the defendant no. 1? OPD1 Civil Suit No.1019/19 Rampal Singh Vs. Rameshpal @ Rinku & Ors. Digitally signed by VARUN VARUN CHANDRA Page No.17 of 20 CHANDRA Date: 2026.01.22 16:49:35 +0530
35. The onus of aforementioned issue was upon the defendant. However, no specific evidence was led by the defendant no. 2 to demarcate a collusion between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1. No questions were brought on record at the time of cross-examination of the plaintiff to substantiate claims of the defendant no. 2 regarding same. It is pertinent to mention that plaintiff had already debarred the defendant no. 1 from his family, albeit a civil case was not instituted by him. The claim of the defendant no. 2 that defendant no. 1 was residing in Dilshad Garden was not substantiate by any evidence whatsoever. The plaintiff had squarely declared his ignorance regarding the whereabouts of the defendant no. 1.
36. In view of the aforesaid findings, the issue no. 2 is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO.3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining the defendants from creating any third party interest in the suit property? OPP
37. As already stated, the plaintiff has been successful in proving his better title against that of the defendants, thereby, Issue no. 3 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
ISSUE NO.4 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mesne profits against the defendants directing them to pay Rs.7,000/- per month from the date of filing of this suit till the date of decree? OPP
38. The plaintiff while claiming of mesne profits failed to furnish Civil Suit No.1019/19 Rampal Singh Vs. Rameshpal @ Rinku & Ors. VARUN Digitally signed by Page No.18 of 20 VARUN CHANDRA CHANDRA Date: 2026.01.22 16:49:47 +0530 any evidence or witness to prove the approximate rent of the suit property in any manner. Further, it is clear from the facts of the case that the present matter has been filed between father-in-law and son/daughter-in-law, wherein due to deteriorating relations, parties had to knock the doors of a court to seek relief. It is admitted by the plaintiff that he himself gave the permission to the defendants to live on the suit property on the basis of rent of Rs.3500/- per floor. However, as the possession has already been granted in his favour, the court is of the opinion that given the factual matrix, the defendant no. 2 should not be unreasonably burdened with cost/damages.
39. In view of aforesaid findings, the present issue of relief of mesne profits is hereby denied/dismissed; held against the plaintiff.
RELIEF
40. As a net result of the aforesaid findings, this suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. It is held that the plaintiff is entitled to (a) a decree of mandatory injunction against the defendants thereby directing them to remove their belongings and to handover the vacant possession of the first and second floor of the suit property i.e. House no. D-229, Old Seemapuri, Delhi-110095 as shown in the red color in the site plan to the plaintiff after an alternative accommodation has been arranged by him for defendant no. 2 and (b) a decree of permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendants from creating third party interest in respect of first and second floor of the suit property i.e. House no. D-229, Old Seemapuri, Delhi-110095 as Civil Suit No.1019/19 Rampal Singh Vs. Rameshpal @ Rinku & Ors. Digitally signed by Page No.19 of 20 VARUN VARUN CHANDRA CHANDRA Date: 2026.01.22 16:49:54 +0530 shown in the red color in the site plan. The relief of mesne profits is hereby denied/dismissed.
41. Upon preparation of the decree sheet by the Reader, the file shall be consigned to the record room.
Note : This judgment contains 20 pages and all the pages have been checked and signed by me.
Digitally signed byVARUN VARUN CHANDRA CHANDRA Date: 2026.01.22 16:50:05 +0530 Pronounced in open court (Varun Chandra) today on 22.01.2026 CJ-02/Shahdara District Karkardooma Courts/Delhi Civil Suit No.1019/19 Rampal Singh Vs. Rameshpal @ Rinku & Ors.
Page No.20 of 20