Delhi District Court
Ramwati @ Rama Devi vs Hariom on 24 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF AYUSH SHARMA: CIVIL JUDGE,
EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Date of Institution of Suit: March 4th, 2023
Reserved on: January 7th, 2026
Pronounced on: January 24th, 2026
SUIT NO: 197/23
IN THE MATTER OF: -
RAMWATI @ RAMA DEVI
W/O SH. RAM CHANDER
R/O H. NO. 29, GALI NO. 1
NEAR SHANKHWAR HOSPITAL
HARIJAN BASTI, OLD KONLDY
DELHI-110096 ...PLAINTIFF
Through: Mr. M.A. Ansari,
Advocate.
VERSUS
1. HARIOM
S/O SH. RAM CHANDER
2. MANJU
W/O SH. HARIOM
BOTH R/O: H. NO. B-29, 1ST FLOOR
NEAR SHANKHWAR HOSPITAL
HARIJAN BASTI, OLD KONLDY
DELHI-110096 ...DEFENDANTS
Through: Ms. Kanchan
Gupta, Advocate.
Digitally
signed by
Suit No 197/23 Pg 1 of 19 AYUSH
AYUSH
SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.01.24
14:30:28
+0530
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit seeking a decree of mandatory injunction directing defendant nos. 1 and 2 to vacate the first floor of property bearing no. B-29, Gali No. 1, Near Shankhwar Hospital, Harijan Basti, Old Kondli, Delhi-110096 (hereinafter referred to as the "suit property") along with a decree of permanent injunction restraining them from entering or interfering with the possession of the ground and second floor of the suit property.
2. The factual conspectus of the case, as outlined by the parties in their respective pleadings, is set out below:
PLAINTIFF'S CASE 2.1 The plaintiff asserts that the suit property is her self-acquired property, constructed up to the second floor from the hard-earned income of the plaintiff and her husband. Defendant no. 1 is the son of the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 is her daughter-in-law. They are residing on the first floor of the suit property solely with the permission of the plaintiff and in the capacity of licensees. 2.2 It is alleged that defendant no. 1 is a habitual drunkard and frequently picked quarrels with the plaintiff, her husband and her son Brijesh, who resides on the second floor of the suit property.
The plaintiff further alleges that both defendants, acting in collusion, wants to forcibly and unlawfully get the suit property transferred in their favour. For this reason, they create nuisance and use filthy and abusive language towards the plaintiff, her husband and her grandson. Defendant no. 2 is further alleged to have threatened to falsely implicate the plaintiff's grandson in fabricated rape cases.
Digitally
signed by
AYUSH
Suit No 197/23 Pg 2 of 19 AYUSH SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.01.24
14:30:47
+0530
2.3 The plaintiff asserts that the defendants have created an
atmosphere of fear and terror in the house. Left with no alternative, the plaintiff lodged a written complaint against both defendants with the concerned police authorities on 16.09.2020 through speed post; however, no action was taken. Thereafter, the plaintiff debarred the defendants from her property, severed all relations with them and requested them to vacate the suit property, but they failed to do so. 2.4 The plaintiff further asserts that, upon the request of the defendants, she permitted them to occupy the suit property only till August 2021. Despite the expiry of the said period, the defendants failed to vacate the premises. On 11.02.2023, both defendants again threatened the plaintiff, her husband, her son and her grandson with dire consequences and abused them using filthy language. Aggrieved by their conduct, the plaintiff submitted another written complaint to the concerned SHO and DCP. However, no action was taken. It is further alleged that on 12.02.2023, defendant no. 2 again picked a quarrel with the plaintiff's grandson Ritik and damaged his mobile phone. 2.5 On 21.02.2023, the plaintiff, through her counsel, served a legal notice upon the defendants terminating their license and calling upon them to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property. Despite due service of the said notice, the defendants neither replied to the same nor complied with its terms. Hence, the present suit.
DEFENDANTS' CASE 2.6 The defendants contested the suit by filing a joint written statement. They assert that the plaintiff is relying upon unregistered documents viz. Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, Digitally signed by AYUSH Suit No 197/23 Pg 3 of 19 AYUSH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.01.24 14:31:40 +0530 receipt and Will, which have no evidentiary value in the eyes of law in view of Section 17(1)(a) read with Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. The defendants further assert that the suit property constitutes the matrimonial home of defendant no. 2, who has been residing therein since her marriage in the year 2008. It is stated that defendant no. 2 has no alternative accommodation and is, therefore, legally entitled to reside in her matrimonial home. 2.7 The defendants contend that the suit is liable to be dismissed as the plaintiff is seeking the relief of possession under the guise of a mandatory injunction, which is impermissible in law. According to the defendants, the appropriate remedy, if any, is a suit for possession, for which the plaintiff is required to pay ad valorem court fees.
2.8 The defendants further assert that the suit property is an ancestral property, in which defendant no. 1 has a right, title and interest. It is also claimed that defendant no. 1 has invested a substantial amount of his hard-earned money in the construction of the suit property.
2.9 In the reply on merits portion of the written statement, the defendants have denied all averments made in the plaint and have alleged that the plaintiff is acting under the influence and tutoring of her son Brijesh.
PLAINTIFF'S REPLICATION 2.10 In the replication, the plaintiff reiterates that the suit property is her self-acquired property and that she has absolute ownership of it. She denies the allegation that the property is ancestral in nature and states that the defendants have placed no material on record to substantiate such a claim. In the remaining paragraphs, Digitally signed by AYUSH Suit No 197/23 Pg 4 of 19 AYUSH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.01.24 14:32:13 +0530 the plaintiff denies the averments made in the written statement and reaffirms the contents of the plaint. ISSUES
3. On the basis of pleadings, vide order dated 11.10.2023, following issues were framed viz:
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP
(iii) Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
4. In order to substantiate her case, plaintiff examined herself as PW1, Mr. Brijesh Kumar as PW2 and her husband, Mr. Ram Chander as PW3.
5. PW1 tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A and relied upon the following documents viz. ID proof Ex. PW1/1, Show cause notice for eviction Ex. PW1/2, Ownership papers of the suit property Ex. PW1/3, Complaint to police authorities dated 16.09.2020 Ex. PW1/4 and Complaint dated 14.02.2023 Ex. PW1/5.
6. PW2 and PW3 tendered their evidence by way of affidavits Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW3/A respectively and relied upon the documents already tendered by PW1.
DEFENDANTS' EVIDENCE
7. In order to substantiate their case, defendants examined themselves as DW1 (Hariom) and DW2 (Manju). DW1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW1/A and DW2 tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW2/A. Digitally signed by Suit No 197/23 Pg 5 of 19 AYUSH AYUSH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.01.24 14:32:23 +0530 SUBMISSIONS
8. Mr. M.A. Ansari, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, advanced the following submissions:
8.1 The plaintiff claims ownership of the suit property on the basis of documents Ex. PW1/3. The status of the defendants in the suit property is that of mere occupiers/licensees. They were permitted to reside in the suit property purely out of grace and familial affection and not by virtue of any legal or proprietary right. Upon termination of the licence, the defendants ceased to have any right to remain in possession of the suit property.
8.2 The defendants have created an atmosphere of fear and terror within the household, compelling the plaintiff to seek their eviction. The plaintiff has severed all relations with the defendants.
The plaintiff and her husband are senior citizens and have been subjected to constant mental agony, humiliation and disturbance due to the hostile conduct of the defendants, resulting in a complete loss of peace and dignity.
8.3 The defendants have taken a bald plea that the suit property is ancestral in nature; however, they have failed to place any evidence on record to substantiate this assertion. Notably, no such suggestion was even put to the plaintiff or her witnesses during cross-examination.
8.4 The objection raised by the defendants regarding the maintainability of the suit for mandatory injunction is misconceived and untenable in law. It is well settled that a suit for mandatory injunction to recover possession from a licensee, whose licence has been duly terminated, is maintainable.
Digitally
signed by
AYUSH
Suit No 197/23 Pg 6 of 19 AYUSH SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.01.24
14:33:11
+0530
8.5 The suit property does not constitute a shared household of
defendant no. 2. The plaintiff, in her cross-examination, has clarified that the kitchen was common only for a period of six months after the marriage of defendant no. 1. The concept of a shared household is intended to protect a destitute woman from forcible eviction and homelessness and cannot be stretched to confer an absolute right to reside in a particular property irrespective of ownership or surrounding circumstances. In any event, the obligation to provide residence to defendant no. 2 lies with her husband, i.e., defendant no. 1 and not with the plaintiff.
9. Ms. Kanchan Gupta, Ld. LAC for the defendant, principally raised the following contentions:
9.1 The suit property is ancestral in nature and has been constructed from the hard-earned money of defendant no. 1. The suit property is also the matrimonial home and shared household of defendant no. 2, entitling her to continue residing therein. 9.2 The documents relied upon by the plaintiff Ex. PW1/3 (colly), are unregistered and in the absence of a valid conveyance deed, do not confer any legal title, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana 1 Ramesh Chand (D) through LRs v. Suresh Chand & Anr. 2 9.3 The plaintiff is, in effect, seeking the relief of possession under the guise of a mandatory injunction. However, the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of jurisdiction and court fees.1
2011 SCC OnLine SC 1360 2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1879 Digitally signed by Suit No 197/23 Pg 7 of 19 AYUSH AYUSH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.01.24 14:33:36 +0530 ANALYSIS AND REASONS
10. I have heard the submissions of the parties at length and examined the record, including the written submissions and judgments filed by the parties. Since both the issues are interlinked and involve common questions of law and fact, they are being taken up together, for consideration.
ISSUES NO. (I), & (II) (ON MANDATORY & PERMANENT INJUNCTION)
11. The onus of proving both the issues lies upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner of the suit property, asserting that it is her self-acquired property, purchased by way of documents viz. GPA, Agreement to Sell, Receipt and Will, all dated 11.04.1997 (Ex. PW1/3). She further asserts that the defendants were permitted to reside in the suit property only as licensees. It is alleged that the defendants subsequently created an atmosphere of terror and hostility in the house, compelling the plaintiff to seek their eviction from the suit property.
12. On the other hand, the defendants contend that the suit property is ancestral in nature and that defendant no. 1 has spent a substantial amount on its construction. They further assert that the documents relied upon by the plaintiff do not confer any right, title, or interest in her favour. Additionally, defendant no. 2 claims that the suit property constitutes her matrimonial home/shared household, thereby entitling her to continue residing therein.
13. The rival claims can be assessed on the basis of the evidence and the documents brought on record by the parties. A brief summary of the evidence led by the parties is outlined below:
a) During her cross-examination, PW1 (plaintiff) deposed that she is an illiterate woman. She stated that she is aware of the Digitally Suit No 197/23 Pg 8 of 19 signed by AYUSH AYUSH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.01.24 14:33:48 +0530 contents of her affidavit and that she had purchased the suit property in April 1997. She further deposed that she has two sons and two daughters, in addition to defendant no. 1. She stated that defendant no. 1 got married in the year 2008 and that defendant no. 2 started residing in the suit property after the marriage. She further stated that the kitchen remained common for a period of six months from the date of marriage of defendant no. 1. PW1 denied that the suit property is a shared household of the defendants. She also denied the suggestion that the present suit has been filed at the instance or under the influence of her other children. She further denied that no licensor-licensee relationship exists between the parties.
b) During the cross-examination, PW2 (Brijesh) deposed that his advocate had explained the contents of his affidavit to him. He stated that he does not understand the meaning of licensor-
licensee as mentioned in paragraphs 17, 18, 19 and 20 of his affidavit. However, he denied the suggestion that he was unaware of the contents of his affidavit.
c) During the cross-examination, PW3 (plaintiff's husband) stated that he does not understand the English language and that he does not know the contents of his affidavit.
d) During cross-examination, DW1 (Hariom) admitted that Ramwati @ Rama Devi is the owner of the suit property. He stated that the suit property earlier belonged to his grandfather, Sh. Ved Ram, but admitted that he has not placed any document on record with regard to the alleged ownership of Ved Ram. He denied the suggestion that the suit Digitally signed by Suit No 197/23 Pg 9 of 19 AYUSH AYUSH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.01.24 14:34:05 +0530 property did not belong to his grandfather. He further deposed that his father transferred the suit property in favour of his mother. DW1 denied that he assaulted the plaintiff and her husband and pressurised them to transfer the suit property in favour of defendant no. 2. He also denied that his wife had threatened his brother Brijesh and his son with false implication in a rape case. He admitted that he is not the owner of the suit property and that he is residing therein with the permission of his mother.
e) During her cross-examination, DW2 (Manju) deposed that her husband has three brothers. She stated that the plaintiff and her husband reside on the ground floor of the suit property.
She further stated that her jeth, Brijesh, resides at another property but his household articles are kept on the second floor of the suit property. She stated that she does not know who owns the suit property, as she has never seen the ownership documents. She admitted that there were disputes between her and the plaintiff and that she had filed a case against the plaintiff. She denied the suggestion that she pressurised the plaintiff and her husband to transfer the suit property in her name.
14. Upon an overall evaluation of the evidence led by the parties, this Court is satisfied that the plaintiff has successfully established that she is the owner and licensor of the suit property, while the defendants are licensees/permissive occupiers. The reasons for arriving at this conclusion are discussed under the following sub- headings:
Digitally signed by AYUSH Suit No 197/23 Pg 10 of 19 AYUSH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.01.24 14:34:29 +0530 PLAINTIFF AS OWNER AND LICENSOR OF THE SUIT PROPERTY
15. The plaintiff has placed on record her title documents viz. General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Receipt and Will, all dated 11.04.1997 (Ex. PW1/3), in support of her claim of ownership. Significantly, the defendants have not specifically denied the plaintiff's ownership in their written statement. On the contrary, DW1 categorically admitted in his cross-examination that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and further admitted that he has no ownership rights therein and is residing in the property with the permission of his mother i.e. the plaintiff. DW2 also failed to dispute the plaintiff's ownership and merely stated that she was unaware of the ownership documents.
16. It is thus evident that the defendants' possession of the suit property emanated/arose from the plaintiff herself. In these circumstances, their status cannot be elevated beyond that of licensees or permissive occupiers. In Swadesh Ranjan Sinha v. Haradeb Banerjee3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a plaintiff is only required to demonstrate that he holds a better title than the defendant and it is not necessary for him to prove that their title is the absolute best of all possible titles. The plaintiff has, therefore, demonstrated a better and superior title vis-à-vis the defendants.
17. The reliance placed by the defendants on Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Ramesh Chand (D) (supra) to contend that documents such as GPA, Agreement to Sell, Receipt and Will do not convey title is misplaced in the facts of the present case. In the said judgments, the Hon'ble Court deprecated the 3 1991 SCC OnLine SC 265, Paragraph 9 Digitally signed by Suit No 197/23 Pg 11 of 19 AYUSH AYUSH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.01.24 14:34:35 +0530 practice of power of attorney sales; however, it preserved the right of the persons who had obtained Sale agreement/General Power of attorney/Will to complete confirmation of title. This position has been specified in Mahnoor Fatima Imran & Ors. v. M/s Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 4, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
"15. The respondents herein who were the writ petitioners have emphasised their claims on the basis of the decision in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana. The said decision has been cited to argue that the title deeds; registered instruments of conveyance, are to be deemed valid unless set aside or declared void by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. There is no such dictum in the said decision wherein a Division Bench of this Court was concerned with conveyances made on the strength of agreements of sale, General Power of Attorney and Wills. The issue addressed was avoidance of execution and registration of deed of conveyances as a mode of transfer of a free hold immovable property, especially in the teeth of Section 17 and Section 49 of the Registration Act. The tendency to adopt Power of Attorney sales along with execution of sale agreements and a bequeath by way of will, instead of execution and registration of proper deeds of conveyance on receipt of full consideration was deprecated.
xxxx
16. The observation that registration of a document gives notice to the world that such a document has been executed is not to confer an unimpeachable validity on all such registered documents. Even the respondents/writ petitioners accept that the 4 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1062, Paragraph 15 Digitally signed by Suit No 197/23 Pg 12 of 19 AYUSH AYUSH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.01.24 14:34:56 +0530 presumption coming forth from a registered deed of conveyance is rebuttable. While reserving the right of persons who had obtained sale agreement/general power of attorney/will executed, to complete confirmation of title on them by getting registered deeds of conveyance, the conclusion of the cited decision, which acts as a binding precedent, is available in para 24, which we extract hereunder:--"
(underlining added)
18. Having regard to the admissions made by the defendants during cross-examination, the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff and the undisputed fact that the defendants entered into possession of the suit property only through the plaintiff, this court holds that the plaintiff has proved her status as owner/licensor and that the defendants are licensees/permissive occupiers. The license stood validly terminated by legal notice dated 21.02.2023 (Ex. PW1/2). In any event, the institution of the present suit itself constitutes sufficient notice of revocation of license 5 and therefore, the denial of the defendants regarding receipt of legal notice is inconsequential. Consequently, the plaintiff is held entitled to the relief of mandatory and permanent injunction. PLEA REGARDING ANCESTRAL NATURE OF THE SUIT PROPERTY AND ALLEGED CONTRIBUTION BY DEFENDANT NO.1 IN ITS CONSTRUCTION
19. The defendants have pleaded that the suit property is ancestral in nature and was constructed using the hard-earned funds of defendant no. 1. However, the assertions remained bald and no evidence whatsoever has been led to substantiate that the property is ancestral or that defendant no. 1 contributed any funds 5 Basudev Prasad vs. Nand Gopal Bachhas 2016 SCC OnLine Del 4029 Digitally signed by AYUSH Suit No 197/23 Pg 13 of 19 AYUSH SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2026.01.24 14:35:02 +0530 towards its construction. Notably, even during the cross- examination of PW1, no suggestion was put that the suit property is ancestral or that defendant no. 1 had financed its construction.
20. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that defendant no. 1 had contributed towards the construction, such contribution by itself does not confer any right, title, or interest in the suit property. In Virender Kumar & Anr. v. Jaswant Rai & Anr.6, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi affirmed the trial court's finding that even where a party constructs a portion of the property using its own funds, such construction does not vest that party with any ownership right, title or interest in the property. In view of the above, the plea raised by the defendants regarding the ancestral nature of the suit property and alleged financial contribution is devoid of merit and liable to be rejected.
SUIT PROPERTY BEING A SHARED HOUSEHOLD OF DEFENDANT NO.2
21. The defendant no. 2 has contended that the suit property constitutes her matrimonial home and a shared household within the meaning of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), on the ground that she has been residing there since her marriage in 2008. On this basis, it is urged that she has an enforceable right to continue in occupation and cannot be evicted. The said contention is untenable and deserves to be rejected. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja 7 has held that the right of residence of a daughter-in-law under Section 19 of the DV Act is not an absolute or indefeasible right and that the court must 6 2011 SCC OnLine Del 1258.
7
2020 SCC OnLine SC 841
Digitally
signed by
AYUSH
Suit No 197/23 Pg 14 of 19 AYUSH SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.01.24
14:35:10
+0530
balance the competing rights and equities of the parties. The relevant observations are reproduced herein:
"90. 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-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."
22. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in Vinay Verma v. Kanika Pasricha8, laid down some broad guidelines to determine whether the obligation to provide residence lies upon the in-laws or upon the husband of the daughter-in-law. The court held:
"58. 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.8
2019 SCC OnLine Del 11530 Digitally signed Suit No 197/23 Pg 15 of 19 AYUSH by AYUSH SHARMA Date: SHARMA 2026.01.24 14:35:18 +0530
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, 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."
(underlining added)
Digitally
Suit No 197/23 Pg 16 of 19 signed by
AYUSH
AYUSH SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.01.24
14:35:22
+0530
23. Similarly, in Aarti Sharma v. Gagan Saran9, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi upheld the eviction of the husband and daughter-in- law from the property of the in-laws and held:
"49. While the DV Act is a social welfare legislation granting protection to women who are victims of domestic violence, every dispute amongst family members cannot be converted into a dispute under the DV Act. The same ought not to be allowed to happen, as it may cause unintended misuse of the provisions of the said Act creating turmoil within families, especially when there is no matrimonial dispute whatsoever between husband and the wife, i.e., son and daughter- in-law. The provisions of the DV Act cannot be used as a ploy by the son, to either claim a right in his father's property or continue to retain possession of the father's property, on the strength of his wife's right of residence. A civil dispute relating to ownership of property cannot be converted, in this manner, into a case under the DV Act, as the same would amount to be an abuse of the beneficial provisions of the DV Act, by stretching it over and beyond its purpose and ambit."
(underlining added)
24. In the present case, defendant no. 2 has failed to adduce any substantive evidence to establish that the suit property constitutes a shared household. There is no material on record to indicate that the parties were residing as a joint family. On the contrary, the plaintiff, during her cross-examination, categorically stated that the kitchen was common only for a period of six months after the marriage of defendant no. 1. Moreover, the defendants have been residing on the first floor separately from the plaintiff.
9
2021 SCC OnLine Del 4110
Digitally
signed by
Suit No 197/23 Pg 17 of 19 AYUSH
AYUSH
SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.01.24
14:35:27
+0530
25. It is also an undisputed position that the relationship between the parties is strained and the defendants have previously initiated legal proceedings against the plaintiff. There is neither any pleading nor any evidence to suggest matrimonial discord between defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2, nor is there any allegation or proof of collusion between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1. In these circumstances, the obligation, if any, to provide residential accommodation to defendant no. 2 rests upon her husband, defendant No. 1 and not upon the plaintiff.
26. The plaintiff, particularly at the evening of her life and with limited means, cannot be compelled to forgo the peaceful enjoyment of her self-acquired property in order to provide residence to the defendants. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, defendant no. 2 cannot claim any enforceable right to continue in possession of the suit property on the ground that it is a shared household.
PLAINTIFF REQUIRED TO SEEK POSSESSION INSTEAD OF MANDATORY INJUNCTION
27. The defendants' final contention is that the present suit for mandatory injunction is not maintainable and that the plaintiff ought to have sought the relief of possession by valuing the suit at the market rate and paying ad valorem court fees. This objection is also misconceived and unsustainable. The suit is premised on a licensor-licensee relationship between the parties. It is a settled principle of law that once a licensee is always a licensee and a licensee cannot deny or exclude the possession of the licensor. Upon termination of the license, the licensor can file a suit for mandatory injunction for eviction of the licensee from the suit Digitally signed by AYUSH Suit No 197/23 Pg 18 of 19 AYUSH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.01.24 14:35:33 +0530 property10. In view of the foregoing discussion, both the issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. RELIEF
28. In view of the findings on the issues, the suit of the plaintiff stands decreed with the following reliefs:
i. The defendants are directed to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property viz. first floor of property bearing no. B-29, Gali No. 1, Near Shankhwar Hospital, Harijan Basti, Old Kondli, Delhi-110096, within 30 days from today.
ii. The defendants are further restrained from entering the ground and the second floor of property bearing no. B-29, Gali No. 1, Near Shankhwar Hospital, Harijan Basti, Old Kondli, Delhi-110096 iii. Costs of the suit are also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
Decree sheet be drawn. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Digitally signed by AYUSH AYUSH SHARMA Pronounced in open court SHARMA Date: 2026.01.24 14:35:38 +0530 On January 24th 2026 (AYUSH SHARMA) CJ/EAST/KARKARDOOMA DELHI/24.01.2026 This judgment contains 19 pages and each page has been signed by me.10
Sant Lal Jain v. Avtar Singh 1985 SCC OnLine SC 88, Paragraphs 6 & 8; Joseph Severance and Ors v. Benny Mathew and Ors. 2005 SCC OnLine SC 1372, Paragraph 7 Suit No 197/23 Pg 19 of 19