Delhi District Court
Sushila Devi vs Gaurav Gupta And Ors on 14 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. T. PRIYADARSHINI
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-RENT CONTROLLER, EAST,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
SUIT No.:- 58/2021
CNR No.:- DLET03-000114-2021
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Smt. Sushila Devi
(Aged about 57 years)
W/o Sh. Devender Kumar,
R/o H. No.F-198, Street no.3,
Pandav Nagar, Delhi-110091
Mob: 9315385025 ..........Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. Gaurav Gupta,
S/o Sh. Devender Kumar,
R/o H. No.F-198, Street No.3,
Pandav Nagar, Delhi-110091
Mob: 9810452307
2. Smt. Akansha Goyal
W/o Sh. Gaurav Gupta
D/o Sh. Devender Goyal,
R/o H. No.F-198, Street No.3,
Pandav Nagar, Delhi-110091
Mob: 9654431657
3. Sh. Devender Goyal
S/o Sh. Charan Das
R/o H. No. 1006, H4 Block,
Jeet Electricals, Jahangir Puri,
Delhi-110033 T
Digitally signed
by T
PRIYADARSHINI
Mob: 9999099265
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2025.08.14
15:54:32 +0530
CS No: 58/2021 Sushila Devi vs Gaurav Gupta and ors 1 of 23
4. Sh. Mohit Goyal
S/o Sh. Devender Goyal
R/o H. No. 1006, H4 Block,
Jeet Electricals, Jahangir Puri,
Delhi-110033
Mob: 8851767686 ..........Defendants
SUIT FOR MANDATORY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Date of Institution: 21.01.2021
Date on which Judgment was reserved: 08.05.2025
Date of Judgment: 14.08.2025
JUDGMENT
CASE AS PER PLAINT
1. In a nutshell, the case of the plaintiff is as follows:
a) Smt. Sushila Devi (hereinafter referred to as "the Plaintiff") and Sh. Gaurav Gupta (son of the plaintiff), Smt. Akanksha Goyal (daughter-in-law of the plaintiff), Sh.
Devender Goyal (father of defendant no.2) and Sh. Mohit Goyal (brother of the defendant no. 2) (hereinafter referred to as "the Defendants') are known to each other being son, daughter-in- law and her family members. Defendants no.1 and 2 got married on 05.12.2012 and since then Defendant no.2 was residing in the property bearing no. H. No. F-198, Street no.3, Pandav Nagar, Delhi-110091 (hereinafter referred to as the "Property"). Both Defendants no.1 and 2 were also blessed with two daughters. Plaintiff permitted both the Defendants no. 1 and CS No: 58/2021 Sushila Devi vs Gaurav Gupta and ors 2 of 23 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.08.14 15:54:39 +0530
2 to stay in the Suit Property due to their close relationship but they had started quarreling with each other and sometimes, Defendant no.2 also misbehaved with the Plaintiff and threatened to implicate her and her family in a false criminal case. Defendant no.1 also neglected both their parents i.e. Plaintiff and her husband. Due to the aforesaid conduct of the Defendants no. 1 and 2, Plaintiff severed all their relations with them and disowned them from their immovable and movable properties by breaking all their relations with them and published the said fact in the newspaper namely 'Rashtriya Sahara' on 28.02.2017 and also reported the same to Hon'ble LG, Commissioner of Police, DCP and the concerned SHO of the area.
b) Thereafter, the Defendants no. 1 and 2 were separated from the family of Plaintiff and they were permitted to use one room, kitchen, bathroom, toilet, store and common area at the 2nd floor of the Property (hereinafter referred to as the " Suit Property"). However, the Defendants no. 1 and 2 did not mend their ways and frequently quarreled with the Plaintiff and her family in order to pressurize them to transfer the property in their name.
c) On 06.11.2020, Defendant no.2 quarreled with the other sons of the Plaintiff namely Saurabh Gupta and Vaibhav Gupta and thereafter, called Defendant no.3 and Defendant no.4, who committed trespass at her house, started beating the sons of the Plaintiff and terrorized them. Police was informed about the CS No: 58/2021 Sushila Devi vs Gaurav Gupta and ors 3 of 23 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.14 15:54:49 +0530 incident and accordingly the MLC of the sons of the Plaintiff got conducted in the hospital.
g) Plaintiff issued legal notice through her counsel to the Defendants, which was duly served upon them and same was also replied by Defendants no. 2, 3 and 4. In this background, the present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff before this court and the Plaintiff has prayed for decree of mandatory injunction and permanent injunction.
PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS
2. Summons of the suit was issued to the Defendants and the same was served upon the Defendants. On 30.03.2021, Ld. Counsel for the Defendants no.2 to 4 appeared and filed the written statement. Written statement was also filed on behalf of Defendant no. 1. It is pertinent to mention that despite multiple opportunities, Defendant no. 1 did not to appear before the Court and hence, vide order dated 08.05.2025, he was proceeded ex-parte.
WRITTEN STATEMENT
3. In his written statement, defendant no.1 averred that the suit of the Plaintiff is not maintainable against him as Defendant no. 1 has already vacated the Suit Property after receipt of the summons of the present case and is presently residing at a rented accommodation at H. No. F-270, Gali No.7, Pandav Nagar, East Delhi-110091 and paying CS No: 58/2021 Sushila Devi vs Gaurav Gupta and ors 4 of 23 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.14 15:54:54 +0530 Rs.15,000/- per month as rent. He also denied the fact that he ever creating any nuisance or misbehaved with the Plaintiff and her family members. Defendant no.1 also denied that he quarreled with the Plaintiff or her family members or threatened them to transfer the property in his name or implicate them in a false case. He also submitted that he has no intention to create any third-party interest in the Suit Property.
4. In their written statement, Defendants no. 2, 3 and 4 have averred that the present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff in collusion with her son/Defendant no. 1 (also estranged husband of Defendant no. 2). It is averred that Defendant no.1 (husband) is not the licensee of the Suit Property and in fact, Defendant no. 1 has paid consideration amount to the Plaintiff while purchasing 2nd floor of the Suit Property. It is further averred that Defendant no.2 being wife of the Defendant no.1 has right of residence in the property owned by the Defendant no. 1. It is also averred that the suit is liable to be dismissed being not properly valued. It is averred that the Plaintiff is not the owner of the Suit Property and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. It also averred that Defendants no.3 and 4 are the father and brother of Defendant no. 2 and they cannot be restrained from visiting and meeting with Defendant no. 2 in her matrimonial house. It is averred that Defendant no. 2 was continuously harassed and tortured by the Plaintiff and her family members and they have retained jewellery of Defendant no. 2. It is averred that Defendant no. 2 also made complaints to the CAW Cell regarding cruel behaviour of the Plaintiff CS No: 58/2021 Sushila Devi vs Gaurav Gupta and ors 5 of 23 T PRIYADARSHINI Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.14 15:55:01 +0530 and her family. Plaintiff, Defendant no.1 and other family have continuously tortured, insulted, taunted and humiliated Defendant no. 2 for demand of dowry. It is averred that Defendants no. 3 and 4 were beaten up by the Plaintiff and her family members many times. Defendant no. 2 denied any ill treatment to the Plaintiff and her family members and also denied filing of false cases. It is also averred that the present case has been filed by the Plaintiff on false ground and false allegation against the Defendants.
REPLICATION FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF
5. Replication was filed by the Plaintiff wherein the averments made in the written statement were denied and those made in the plaint were reiterated. The Plaintiff has denied that the Suit Property is built out of money contributed by Defendant no. 1 and it is stated that Defendant no. 1 himself was a minor and dependent on his parents at the time of purchase / construction of the Property. It is also submitted that Defendant no. 1 and 2 were residing separately from the Plaintiff and maintaining their independent kitchen. The Plaintiff has also denied that she and her family members used to harass / misbehave with the Defendants.
ISSUES
6. After completion of pleadings, following issues were framed on 04.05.2023 namely:
CS No: 58/2021 Sushila Devi vs Gaurav Gupta and ors 6 of 23 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.14 15:55:08 +0530 "Issue no. 1 - Whether Plaintiff is the owner of the Suit Property? OPD 2, 3 & 4 Issue no. 2 - Whether suit is filed in collusion with Defendant no.1? OPD 2, 3 & 4 Issue no.3- Whether the suit is properly valued? OPD 2, 3 and 4 Issue no.4- Whether Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP Issue no.5- Whether Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP"
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
7. In order to prove her case, Plaintiff has examined herself as PW1. She was duly cross-examined and discharged on 08.08.2023. PW1 have reiterated the averments made in the plaint. She also relied upon various documents and tendered by her in evidence, such as -
a) Copy of Aadhar Card Ex.PW1/1(OSR);
b) Site plan Ex. PW1/2;
c) Copies of ownership document i.e. irrevocable GPA dated
05.04.1984, deed of agreement to sell dated 05.04.1984, deed of Will dated 05.04.1984, receipt dated 05.04.1984 Ex.PW1/3 (colly);
d) Copy of property tax receipt of the Suit Property Ex.
PW1/4;
e) Copy of complaint dated 28.02.2017 Mark A;
CS No: 58/2021 Sushila Devi vs Gaurav Gupta and ors 7 of 23
Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.08.14
15:55:13 +0530
f) Copy of newspaper publication dated 28.02.2017 Mark
B;
g) Copy of letter of lawyer dated 27.02.2017 Mark C;
h) Copy of MLCs of sons of plaintiff Saurabh Gupta and
Vaibhav Gupta dated 06.11.2020 Mark D and Mark E;
i) Legal notice dated 26.12.2020 Ex. PW1/10;
j) Speed post receipts Ex. PW1/11(colly);
k) Copy of reply dated 08.01.2021 of legal notice Ex.
PW1/12;
l) Postal envelope Ex. PW1/13; and
m) Certified copy of income affidavit of defendant no. 2 Ex.
PW1/14.
8. After completion of Plaintiff's evidence, the PE was closed vide separate statement of Plaintiff dated 08.08.2023.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
9. Defendant no. 2 led evidence on behalf of herself as well as Defendants no. 3 and 4. In order to prove their case, Defendant no. 2 has examined herself as D2W1. She was duly cross-examined and discharged on 27.03.2025. D2W1 have reiterated the averments made in the plaint. She also relied upon various documents and tendered by her in evidence, such as -
a) Copy of agreement Mark X;
b) Copy of complaint to SHO, PS Pandav Nagar, vide DD
CS No: 58/2021 Sushila Devi vs Gaurav Gupta and ors 8 of 23
Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2025.08.14
15:55:18 +0530
No. 32 A dated 08.08.2019 Ex. D2W-1/2(OSR);
c) Copy of complaint to SHO, PS Pandav Nagar, dated 27.12.2019 Ex. D2W-1/3(OSR);
d) Copy of complaint to ACP, CAW Cell dated 30.12.2019 Ex. D2W-1/4(OSR);
e) Copy of complaint to ACP, CAW Cell dated 19.01.2021 Ex. D2W-1/5(OSR);
f) Copy of complaint to DCP East dated 06.10.2021 Ex.
D2W-1/6(OSR);
g) Copy of MLC of Mohit dated 06.11.2020 Ex. D2W-1/7;
h) Copy of MLC of defendant no. 2 dated 06.11.2020 Ex.
D2W-1/8;
i) Copy of electricity bill in the name of Gaurav Gupta Mark Y; and
j) Copy of FIR no. 245/2021 u/s 498A/406/34 IPC, PS Pandav Nagar Mark A.
10. Defendants have also examined one witness namely Sh. Satender Kumar, Assistant Grade-III, Business Manager, Commercial, Pocket-I, Near Ram Mandir, Mayur Vihar, Delhi as DW2W2, who produced the attested K.No. File of C.A no. 150743863 pertaining to Sh. Gaurav Gupta containing various documents and all documents were collectively Ex. D2W2/1. He was duly cross-examined. DE was then closed by the Defendant no.2 vide order dated 29.04.2025. No defence evidence has been led by the other Defendants.
CS No: 58/2021 Sushila Devi vs Gaurav Gupta and ors 9 of 23
Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.08.14
15:55:23 +0530
FINAL ARGUMENTS
11. Final arguments have been heard on behalf of the parties. The pleadings as well as evidence and all the annexed and exhibited documents have been carefully perused. All the issues are decided as follows.
FINDINGS Issue no. 1:- Whether the Plaintiff is the owner of the suit property? OPD2,3&4?
12. The Plaintiff has filed copies of ownership documents i.e. irrevocable GPA dated 05.04.1984, deed of agreement to sell dated 05.04.1984, deed of Will dated 05.04.1984 and receipt dated 05.04.1984 Ex.PW1/3 (colly). In fact, none of the Defendants have denied that the Plaintiff is the owner of the Property. DW1 i.e. Defendant no. 2 has admitted in her cross-examination that the Property is in the name of the Plaintiff. As the Property was purchased in the year 1984 when the Defendant no. 1 was a minor, no question of contribution by Defendant no. 1 w.r.t. purchase of the Property arises. The argument of Defendants no. 2 to 4 is that funds for the purchase / construction of the Suit Property (i.e. second floor of the Property) was given by Defendant no. 1. Defendant no. 2 to 4 have not filed any evidence regarding contribution of funds by Defendant no. 1. In arguendo, even if it is admitted that Defendant no. 1 contributed funds CS No: 58/2021 Sushila Devi vs Gaurav Gupta and ors 10 of 23 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.14 15:55:27 +0530 for construction of the Suit Property, he does not become owner of the Suit Property in the absence of title documents in his favour. The Defendant no. 2 has examined DW2 Sh. Satender Kumar, Assistant Grade-III, Business Manager, Commercial, Pocket-I, Near Ram Mandir, Mayur Vihar, Delhi as DW2W2, who produced the attested K.No. File of C.A no. 150743863 to prove that the electricity connection is in the name of Defendant no. 1. It is an established position that electricity bills, while indicative of a service connection, do not constitute proof of ownership of a property. They can serve as supportive evidence of a person's connection to the property but are not definitive proof of ownership. [Re: Rathnavelu vs. S. Lakshmi Ammal AIR ONLINE 2020 MAD 622]. Hence, Defendants no. 2 to 4 have not discharged their onus that the Suit Property is not owned by the Plaintiff and accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided against the Defendants no. 2 to 4.
Issue no.3- Whether the suit is properly valued? OPD2, 3 and 4
13. The onus was on Defendants no. 2 to 4 to prove that the Suit Property has not been properly valued. Other than making a bald averment in the written statement, Defendants no. 2 to 4 have not stated what ought to have been the correct valuation of the suit. No questions in this regard have been asked during the cross-examination of the Plaintiff / PW1. The said Defendants have not made a cogent defence and have not discharged their onus. Moreover, the valuation clause of the plaint does not appear to suffer any infirmity or CS No: 58/2021 Sushila Devi vs Gaurav Gupta and ors 11 of 23 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.08.14 15:55:31 +0530 incorrectness. Therefore, issue no. 3 is decided against the Defendant.
Issue no. 2 - Whether suit is filed in collusion with Defendant no.1? OPD 2, 3 & 4 Issue no.4- Whether Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP
14. Both the issues are inter-connected and hence, are being decided in a composite manner. On the aspect of collusion between the in-laws and the son / husband in an eviction suit against the daughter in law, the Hon'ble Delhi High court in Vinay Varma vs. Kanika Pasricha and another [2019 SCC OnLine Del 11530] has observed:
"There are several categories of disputes which have arisen between parents/in-laws/children. The first category of cases are ones in which the parents/in-laws have developed acrimony either with the son and daughter- in-law jointly and/or individually resulting in the parents/in-laws seeking the right of exclusive residence either in the form of possession and injunction or seeking eviction of the son/ daughter-in-law. The second category of cases are also those where there is a rift between the son and the daughter- in-law and either in collusion with the son or otherwise, an attempt is made to evict the daughter-in-law. In most cases, the son i.e. the husband either simply does not appear in the proceedings or refuses/fails to provide maintenance to the wife. Further, in some cases it is CS No: 58/2021 Sushila Devi vs Gaurav Gupta and ors 12 of 23 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.08.14 15:55:35 +0530 noticed that the son is in collusion with the parents and leaves the residence of the parents only in order to enable his parents to evict the daughter-in-law. In the third category of cases, the son has actually moved out of the residence and lives in a different residence. However, the daughter-in-law refuses to move from the residence of the in-laws due to a lack of alternate accommodation or otherwise."
15. The Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff has argued the following:
a) Firstly, there is no collusion as the Plaintiff has disowned Defendants no. 1 and 2 from their movable and immovable properties through newspaper publication dated 28.02.2017.
b) Secondly, Defendant no. 1 resides separately from the Plaintiff and her family.
c) Thirdly, both parties have alleged assaults and violent incidents against each other and thus, they ought not be asked to live together.
d) Fourthly, the Suit Property is not a shared household as the Defendant no. 1 and 2 were residing in the property separately and they had a separate kitchen.
e) Fifthly, there is no obligation on parents in law to provide residence to the daughter in law as the daughter in law has no right to stay in father in law's property if husband has no interest [Re: Sadar Malkiat Singh vs. Kanwaljit Kaur and others 168 (2010) DLT 521]. On similar lines, a woman cannot claim right to live in house of husband's parents against their consent CS No: 58/2021 Sushila Devi vs Gaurav Gupta and ors 13 of 23 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.14 15:55:41 +0530 and wishes [Re: Neetu Mittal vs. Kanta Mittal 2009 AIR (Del) 72]
f) Lastly, a daughter-in-law has no right to reside in father-
in-law's property not covered under 'shared household' definition [Re: Barun Kumar Nahar vs. Parul Nahar 2013 (2) AD (Delhi) 78].
16. Per contra, Defendant no. 2 has averred in her written statement that the Plaintiff has filed the suit in collusion with Defendant no. 1. The Defendant no.2 has also placed on record FIR No. 245/2021 registered against the Plaintiff, her husband i.e. Defendant no. 1 and the other sons of the Plaintiff in view of the assault meted against her by them. The said assault itself is said to be evidence of collusion between the parties.
17. The judgment in Barun Kumar Nahar vs. Parul Nahar 2013 (2) AD (Delhi) 78] relied by the Plaintiff is distinguishable as in the said case, alternative accommodation and financial support was provided by the husband to the Defendant i.e. daughter in law. No such averment has been made that alternative accommodation is being provided to the Defendant no. 2. Similarly, the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sudha Mishra vs. Surya Chandra Mishra [Order dated 25.07.2014 in RFA 299/2014] does not hold ground as it has been decided prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Satish Ahuja vs. Sneha Ahuja [AIR OnLine 2020 SC 784] (hereinafter referred to as "Satish Ahuja case") which has widened the ambit of CS No: 58/2021 Sushila Devi vs Gaurav Gupta and ors 14 of 23 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.08.14 15:55:44 +0530 "shared household".
18. On the issue whether the Suit Property comes within the purview of "shared household", it is pertinent to note that shared household is defined under Section 2 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 as follows:
(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 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."
19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Satish Ahuja case while overruling S.R. Batra vs. Taruna Batra [2007 3 SCC 169] has held that excluding the right of residence against properties where the husband has no right, share, interest or title, would severely curtail the extent of the usefulness of the right to residence. The following observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid Satish Ahuja case is relevant:
CS No: 58/2021 Sushila Devi vs Gaurav Gupta and ors 15 of 23 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.08.14 15:55:49 +0530 "The fact that the respondent is residing in first floor of the premises is not matter of dispute. Even if the house is in the name of the appellant and that even if we accept the case of the appellant that appellant's son Raveen has no share in the house belonging to the appellant, with whom the respondent was living in domestic relationship, whether the respondent is entitled to reside in the premises in question as shared household is the question to be answered... .... 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."
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Satish Ahuja case has also observed that:
"In case, the shared household of a woman is a tenanted/allotted/licensed accommodation where tenancy/ allotment/license is in the name of the husband, father-in- law or any other relative, the Act, 2005 does not operate against the landlord/lessor/licensor in initiating appropriate proceedings for eviction of the tenant/allottee/licensee qua the shared household. However, in case the proceedings are due to any collusion between the two, the woman, who is living in the shared household has right to resist the proceedings on all grounds which the tenant/lessee/licensee could have taken in CS No: 58/2021 Sushila Devi vs Gaurav Gupta and ors 16 of 23 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.08.14 15:55:55 +0530 the proceedings. The embargo under Section 17(2) of Act, 2005 to not to be evicted or excluded save in accordance with the procedure established by law operates only against the "respondent", i.e., one who is respondent within the meaning of Section 2(q) of Act, 2005."
21. The Hon'ble Delhi High court in Vinay Varma vs. Kanika Pasricha and another [2019 SCC OnLine Del 11530], emphasizing on striking a balance between the rights of the parents/in-laws and the rights of the daughter-in-law, laid down few guidelines for the benefit of the courts which are reproduced herein below: -
"46...... (a) (b) (c) (d) The court/tribunal has to first ascertain the nature of the relationship between the parties and the son's/daughter's family. 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. 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. 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 CS No: 58/2021 Sushila Devi vs Gaurav Gupta and ors 17 of 23 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.14 15:56:00 +0530 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. (e) (f) 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. 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."
22. The Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff has also averred that the Plaintiff is senior citizen and has a right to reside peacefully in her residence. In S. Vanitha vs. Deputy Commissioner [AIR OnLine 2020 SC 897], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasized that the right of a woman to reside in shared household ought to be balanced with the rights of senior citizens.
23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satish Chander Ahuja case has observed that "the right to residence under Section 19 is not an indefeasible right of residence in shared household especially when CS No: 58/2021 Sushila Devi vs Gaurav Gupta and ors 18 of 23 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.14 15:56:05 +0530 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".
24. The Plaintiff has debarred the Defendant no. 1 from her movable and immovable properties in 2017. The case has been filed in 2021, therefore, the said debarment cannot be said to be paperwork in support of the eviction suit. It does not appear that the Defendant no. 1 has vacated the Suit Property in order to enable the Plaintiff to file an eviction petition against Defendant no. 1 as the Defendant no. 1 has stated that he vacated the Suit Property after receiving summons of this suit. No evidence has been led by the Defendant no. 2 to show any collusion between the Plaintiff and Defendant no. 1. Bald pleadings without evidence does not assist the case of the Defendant no. 2. Therefore, issue no. 2 is decided against Defendants no. 2, 3 and 4 with the finding that no collusion has been shown by the said Defendants between Defendant no. 1 and the Plaintiff.
25. Further, the property even though a "shared household" is the property of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff being a senior citizen is entitled to enjoy the same without being troubled by marital discord between their son and daughter- in-law. While the daughter-in-law's right to residence and a roof over her head is extremely important, the parent's CS No: 58/2021 Sushila Devi vs Gaurav Gupta and ors 19 of 23 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.08.14 15:56:13 +0530 right to enjoy their own property and earn income from the same is also equally important. Applying the ratio of Vinay Verma's case which has also been applied by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Madalsa Sood vs Maunicka Makkar and another [Decision dated 10.12.2021 in CS(OS) 93/2021], as it appears that the Defendant no. 1 is not supporting both the Plaintiff and his own wife i.e. Defendant no.
2/children, the Plaintiff is entitled to seek possession from their daughter-in-law i.e. Defendant no. 2, however, for a reasonable period they would have to provide some shelter to the Defendant no. 2 during which time she is able to seek her remedies against her husband. As this Court is not privy in the present matter to the status of the parties in other proceedings and the financial standing of the Plaintiff or Defendant no. 1, no order as to provision of alternative accommodation or rent in lieu of alternative accommodation is being passed. However, the Court is cognizant that an eviction order, in this case, might lead to the Defendant no. 2 and her minor daughters being relegated to the roads without any adequate support and roof over their head and an opportunity ought to be granted to her to avail appropriate reliefs. Balancing the rights of Defendant no. 2 as well as the Plaintiff, issue no. 4 is decided in favour of the Plaintiff with directions to the Defendant no. 2 to vacate and handover peaceful possession of the Suit Property to the Plaintiff within 6 months from today and Defendant no. 2 is granted time of 6 months' time to seek appropriate remedies against her husband or the Plaintiff before the appropriate Court.
CS No: 58/2021 Sushila Devi vs Gaurav Gupta and ors 20 of 23
Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2025.08.14
15:56:19 +0530
Issue no.5 - Whether Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP
26. The Plaintiff has prayed that the Defendants no. 3 and 4 be directed to not illegally enter and interfere in the enjoyment and peaceful possession of the Plaintiff in the Property. The Defendant no. 1 presently resides in the second floor of the Property and Defendants no. 3 and 4 are father and brother of Defendant no. 2. Defendant no. 2 has two minor children and does not stay with her husband. Restraining her father and brother from entering her residence would amount to irreparable harm to the Defendant no. 2. As Defendant no. 2 has been permitted to reside in the Suit Property for 6 months' effective from today, any restraining order must also come into force only after vacation of the Suit Property by Defendant no. 2. Accordingly, issue no. 5 is partly decided in favour of the Plaintiff restraining Defendants no. 3 and 4 from entering and interfering in the enjoyment and peaceful possession of the Property which is in possession of the Plaintiff. The injunction shall be effective re: second floor of the Property only after vacation of the same by the Defendant no. 2. Defendants have not averred that they have any right, title or interest over the Property and hence, they are restrained from creating any third-party interest in the Property owned by the Plaintiff.
Relief(s)
27. In view of the above discussion, following reliefs are granted to CS No: 58/2021 Sushila Devi vs Gaurav Gupta and ors 21 of 23 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.08.14 15:56:26 +0530 the Plaintiff:
a) A decree of permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants thereby permanently restraining the Defendants from creating any third party interest in the Property of the Plaintiff i.e. H. No. F-198, Street no.3, Pandav Nagar, Delhi-110091.
b) A decree of permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants no. 3 and 4 thereby permanently restraining Defendants no. 3 and 4 from entering or interfering the Plaintiff in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property which is in her possession (the permanent injunction shall be applicable with respect to the Second Floor of the Property only after vacation of the same by the Defendant no.2 and handover of vacant and peaceful possession to the Plaintiff).
c) A decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against Defendant no. 2 with directions to Defendant no. 2 to handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the Suit Property i.e. Second Floor, H. No. F-198, Street no.3, Pandav Nagar, Delhi-110091 within 6 months from today with the said time being granted to Defendant no. 2 to seek appropriate remedies against her husband or the Plaintiff before the appropriate Court.
d) No order as to costs.
Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2025.08.14
15:56:33 +0530
CS No: 58/2021 Sushila Devi vs Gaurav Gupta and ors 22 of 23
28. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.Digitally signed by T
Announced in open court T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
on this 14th August, 2025 2025.08.14
15:56:39 +0530
T. Priyadarshini
Senior Civil Judge-cum-RC (East)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
This judgment consists of 23 pages and each and every page of this judgment is signed by me.
CS No: 58/2021 Sushila Devi vs Gaurav Gupta and ors 23 of 23