Delhi District Court
Mubina Begum vs Shaista @ Farida on 12 February, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJESH MALIK, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE -06: CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS DJ 15360/2018
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Smt. Mubina Begum
W/o Mohd. Yamin
R/o B-15, DDA Flats,
Turkman Gate, Delhi
..........Plaintiff
VERSUS
Smt. Shaista @ Farida
D/o Late Sh. Mirazuddin
R/o Flat No. N-7, DDA Flats,
Turkman Gate, Delhi
........Defendant
Other Details :
Date of Institution : 12.03.2015
Date of Reserving Judgment : 24.11.2023
Date of Judgment : 12.02.2024
CS DJ 15360/2018
Smt. Mubina Begum vs. Smt Shaista Page No. 1 of 7
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION AND PERMANENT
INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT:-
1. The plaintiff is the mother-in-law of the defendant and has filed the present suit for recovery of possession of the part of the terrace floor at the third floor in the property bearing number B-15, Turkman Gate, Delhi as shown in the site plan i.e. Annexure P-8 (Hereinafter referred to as the suit property)
2. It is averred that the suit property is in the possession of the defendant; that Noor Hassan was the original allottee of the property. He was the husband of the plaintiff. After the death of Noor Hassan, all other LRs of Noor Hassan has made an oral Hiba/gift as per the Islamic law in favour of the plaintiff.
3. The defendant is the wife of the plaintiff's son born from the first marriage of the plaintiff with Md. Yameen. It is submitted that the son from the first marriage has no right in the suit property which was originally owned by the late second husband of the plaintiff and after his death, all other LRs of her late second husband gifted the property by making oral Hiba in her favour.
4. It is averred that the son of the plaintiff has already divorced the defendant in the year 2014. It is submitted that the defendant's status in the suit property was of a licensee and the CS DJ 15360/2018 Smt. Mubina Begum vs. Smt Shaista Page No. 2 of 7 plaintiff has already revoked the licensee by legal notice dated 20.02.2015. After revoking the licensee of the defendant, the status of the defendant has become as an illegal occupant. Hence, the present suit has been filed, seeking the possession of the suit property.
5. The defendant filed the written statement, admitting that the plaintiff is her mother-in-law. However, it is averred that no divorce has taken place between the plaintiff's son and the defendant; that she is a legally wedded wife of the plaintiff's son and has been residing in the suit property in the capacity of the wife and daughter- in-law; that after marriage of the defendant with the plaintiff's son, the plaintiff's son did the construction of the terrace floor from his own income and consequently she has a right of residence in her husband (plaintiff's son) property. It is stated that the present suit by mother-in- law of the plaintiff is a counter blast to the suit for injunction filed by the defendant against her mother-in-law.
6. In the application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, it is submitted that the defendant has admitted the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant being the mother-in-law and daughter-in- law. It is submitted that the defendant has admitted residing in the suit property in the capacity of the daughter-in-law.
7. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that in view of the categorical admission of the relationship of the mother-in-law and daughter-in-law, the present matter may be decreed under Order 12 CS DJ 15360/2018 Smt. Mubina Begum vs. Smt Shaista Page No. 3 of 7 Rule, 6 in favour of the plaintiff.
Observations of this court:
8. Admittedly, the defendant is the daughter-in-law of the plaintiff. She resides in the suit property in the capacity of the wife of the plaintiff's son. Though, the plaintiff has claimed that his son has divorced the defendant, but the defendant claims that she has not been divorced. This court needs not to go into the question of divorce as the contour of the present controversy revolves around the right of the defendant to reside in the suit property.
Competing right of residence:-
9. The competing right of residence of the daughter-in-law or right of the in-laws to get the possession of the property from the daughter-in-law have been decided by the Judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Madalsa Sood Vs. Maunicka Makkar & Anr CS (OS) 93/2021 pronounced on 10th December, 2021, wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court passed a decree for possession in favour of the mother-in-law and against the daughter-in-law. The relevant paras of the judgment are re-produced here as follows:
"17. Thus, it is clear that even where a residence is clearly a shared household, it does not bar the owner, the plaintiff herein, from claiming eviction against her daughter- in-law, if the circumstances call for it.
18. The next question then is, do these circumstances exist in the present case? The learned senior counsel for the defendants CS DJ 15360/2018 Smt. Mubina Begum vs. Smt Shaista Page No. 4 of 7 stressed on the fact that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had vide order dated 14th January, 2021 granted a residence order pending the disposal of her application under Section 12 of the DV Act. Therefore, no order of eviction can be passed by the civil court. The Supreme Court had considered in Satish Chander Ahuja (supra) the effect of the residence orders passed by the Magistrate under Section 19 of the DV Act in the civil suit. After extensive discussion, the Supreme Court concluded that the decision by a criminal court does not bind the civil court but would be relevant while dealing with the suit for possession or eviction that may be filed against the daughter in law. Therefore, the contention of the learned senior counsel for the defendants cannot be accepted."
"22. But is it clear that the defendant no.1 in order to wrest a settlement from the plaintiff, has made efforts to pressurise her while staying in her premises. The defendants have admitted in their written statement that the plaintiff has one bedroom in her possession whereas the defendants had two bedrooms in their possession with kitchen, drawing and dinning being common portions. By inducting her mother and for a short time her sister, the defendant No.1 seems to have made an attempt to assert rights in respect of the suit property, clearly causing distress to the plaintiff. The averments in the written statement are sufficient to establish a justification for the plaintiff to seek the eviction of the defendants. There is no need to put the plaintiff to proof of the admitted stand of the defendants as expressed in their joint written statement. The Supreme Court in S. CS DJ 15360/2018 Smt. Mubina Begum vs. Smt Shaista Page No. 5 of 7 Vanitha Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru urban District and Others 2020 SCC online SC 1023 held that when faced with competing claims of the parties, one constituting a shared household and the other the right of the senior citizen to live peacefully in the twilight of their life, appropriate reliefs must be given. In view of the clear facts and circumstances, the plaintiff is clearly entitled to seek possession of the suit premises from the two defendants without the rigours of an unnecessary and prolonged trial at her age."
10. Reverting back to the present case, the ownership of the plaintiff has not been denied by the defendant. However, it is averred that the defendant's husband has constructed the floor of the property in possession of the defendant. Even if, this fact is admitted for the sake of arguments, still it does not confer any ownership right over the roof floor. At most, the defendant's husband can claim the money spent in the construction of the floor. The amount spent in construction does not turn the property as the joint family property unless it has been specifically put into the pool of the joint family. There are no such averments in the written statement that the property was the joint family property. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Madalsa Sood Vs. Maunicka Makkar & Anr (supra) and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of S. Vanitha Vs. Deputi Commissioner, Bengaluru urban District and others (supra), the suit of the plaintiff for the relief of possession in respect of the suit property as shown in the site plan i.e. Annexure- P8 is decreed under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.
CS DJ 15360/2018 Smt. Mubina Begum vs. Smt Shaista Page No. 6 of 711. Let the Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the Record Room. No order as to costs. However, the execution petition in the present suit shall be subject to the outcome of the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the O.REF.NO. 1/2023 sent by this court and a matter pending before the Division Bench in CS(OS) No. 601/2022 titled as Geeta Anand V. Tanya Arjun & Anr.
12. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Court Dated: 12.02.2024 (RAJESH MALIK) Addl. District Judge-06 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS DJ 15360/2018 Smt. Mubina Begum vs. Smt Shaista Page No. 7 of 7