Delhi District Court
Smt. Kiran Bhola vs Smt. Soma Rani And Ors on 24 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-04,
(PRESIDED OVER BY: ANIL CHANDHEL)
WEST DISTRICT, THC, DELHI
CNR NO. DLWT01-009684-2019
RCA NO.158/2019
Ms. Kiran Bhola
W/o Mr. Sunil Kumar,
R/o 11/45, First Floor,
Subhash Nagar,
New Delhi-110027 ....Appellant
Versus
1. Ms. Soma Rani,
W/o Late Mangat Ram Bhola,
R/o 11/45, Subhash Nagar,
New Delhi-110027.
2. Ms. Ekta Bhola,
D/o Late Mangat Ram Bhola,
R/o 11/45, Subhash Nagar,
New Delhi-110027.
3. Mr. Sunil Kumar,
S/o Late Mangat Ram,
R/o 11/45, First Floor,
Subhash Nagar, New Delhi-110027. ...Respondents
REGULAR CIVIL APPEAL UNDER
SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
22.10.2019, PASSED BY THE COURT OF
________________________________________________________________
Kiran Bhola Vs. Soma Rani & Ors. Page No. 1 of 24
RCA DJ No. 158/2019
LD. CIVIL JUDGE-05, WEST, TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI IN CIVIL SUIT
NO. 1663/2018.
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 04.12.2019
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 20.08.2025
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 24.09.2025
Appearances:
Mr. Veer Singh, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant.
Mr. Rakshit Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2.
Mr. Kartik Khanna, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.3.
JUDGMENT
1. This regular first Appeal, under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred by the Appellant against the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2019, passed by Ld. Civil Judge-05, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CS No. 1663/2018. In terms of the impugned judgment /decree, the Court of Ld. Civil Judge allowed the application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and decreed the suit filed by the Respondent No.1 & 2 for the prayer of mandatory injunction against the Appellant and Respondent No.3. The Appellant is wife of the Respondent No.3 and the Respondent No.1 is the mother of the ________________________________________________________________ Kiran Bhola Vs. Soma Rani & Ors. Page No. 2 of 24 RCA DJ No. 158/2019 Respondent No.3. The Respondent No.2 is the daughter of the Respondent No.1 and sister of the Respondent No.3.
2. Proceedings before the Court of Ld. Civil Judge:
It will be appropriate to recapitulate the proceedings before the Court of Ld. Civil Judge and the same are being summed up in brief in the paras stated hereinbelow:
2.1 The Respondent No.1 and 2 filed the suit for the prayers of mandatory injunction, mesne profit and permanent injunction, with regard to the suit property, i.e., property bearing No.11/25, First Floor, Subhash Nagar, Delhi-
110027. The averments made in the plaint by the Respondent No.1 & 2/Plaintiffs, are briefly stated, in sub-paras hereinbelow:
i. The Respondent No.1 and 2 were joint owners of the suit property by virtue of a transfer lease deed dated 30.04.1992. The Respondent No.3 is son of Respondent No.1, and a marriage was solemnized between the Appellant and the Respondent No.3. The Respondent No.1 and 2, on account of love and affection, permitted both the Appellant and the Respondent No.3 to reside in the suit property, as licensees after their marriage. The Appellant and the Respondent No.3 had been residing as licensees in the suit property since 1997. The electricity ________________________________________________________________ Kiran Bhola Vs. Soma Rani & Ors. Page No. 3 of 24 RCA DJ No. 158/2019 connection of the suit property was in the name of the Respondent No.1.
ii. The Appellant had been harassing the Respondent No.1 and 2 with a view to coerce them to transfer the title of half of entire immovable properties of the Respondent No.1 in her name. The Appellant had subjected the Respondent No.1 and 2 to grave emotional and physical cruelty. The Appellant and Respondent No.3 did not share a cordial relationship and their frequent fights had disturbed peaceful lives of the Respondent No.1 and 2. The Appellant had also made demand for cash money and intimidated the Respondent No.1 and 2 to implicate them in false criminal cases.
iii. In 1993, the Respondent No.3 bought a piece of land bearing plot No. B-21, Chankya Place, Pankha Road, New Delhi and the Respondent No.1 had paid consideration of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousands Only) towards purchase of the aforesaid property. The Respondent No.1 had requested the Respondent No.3 to leave the suit property along with the Appellant and shift to aforesaid self-owned property of the Respondent No.3.
iv. The Appellant had threatened the Respondent No.1 to face dire consequences, in case she did not transfer ________________________________________________________________ Kiran Bhola Vs. Soma Rani & Ors. Page No. 4 of 24 RCA DJ No. 158/2019 50% of her entire properties to the Appellant. The Appellant had misbehaved with the Respondent No.1 on 16.10.2018 and had made frivolous allegations of physical assault by calling up Police. The Appellant had further restrained the Respondent No.1 from entering third room situated above the suit property.
v. The Respondent No.1 had lodged a criminal complaint dated 19.11.2018 against the Appellant and also issued a public notice dated 20.11.2018, whereby she had severed all her relations with the Appellant and Respondent No.3.
vi. On 21.11.2018, the Respondent No.1 and 2 had made it clear to both the Appellant and the Respondent No.3 that the licensor-licensee relationship between the parties stood terminated and further directed them to remove themselves and their provisions from the suit property.
On the basis of above-mentioned averments, the Respondent No.1 and 2 prayed for the decree of mandatory injunction for removal of the Appellant and Respondent No.3 from the suit property. Further consequential prayers of mesne profits/damages and permanent injunction have also been sought in the suit.
2.2. The Appellant was duly served with the summons of the suit ________________________________________________________________ Kiran Bhola Vs. Soma Rani & Ors. Page No. 5 of 24 RCA DJ No. 158/2019 and entered appearance on 15.01.2019. The Appellant filed the written statement and denied the averments of the plaint, as well as the case of the Respondent No.1 and 2. The contentions raised by the Appellant in the written statement are being summed up in brief in the paras hereinbelow:
i. The suit property, i.e., 11/45, Subhash Nagar, Delhi-
110027, was originally allotted on leasehold basis by L&DO to late Sohna Mal, who was grandfather of Respondent No.3. The Respondent No.1 and 2, by unfair means and by forging documents, had got the aforesaid property transferred in their names illegally and had filed the suit with malafide intentions. The children of the Appellant and the Respondent No.3 had acquired legal rights in the suit property by the operation of Hindu law of succession. The Respondents by unfair means and by forging documents had transferred the suit property in their names illegally and with malafide intention, had filed the present suit.
ii. The suit was a collusive suit between the Respondents and filed with active connivance of the Respondents to defeat the legal rights the Appellant and her two younger sons. The suit property was the matrimonial house of the Appellant and she had been residing in the same after marriage with the Respondent No.3 and had been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the ________________________________________________________________ Kiran Bhola Vs. Soma Rani & Ors. Page No. 6 of 24 RCA DJ No. 158/2019 suit property since her marriage.
iii. The Appellant had been residing in the suit property since her marriage, and all three rooms were in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the Appellant. The Respondent No.1 and 2, with malafide intention, had put their lock on one of room so as to harass, torture and humiliate the Appellant.
iv. The Respondents, in active connivance, had been exerting and inflicting immense physical and mental cruelties upon the Appellant in order to evict the Appellant and her two sons from the suit property. The Respondents along with Gulshan Bhola, i.e., younger son of Respondent No.1 and other family members had been continuously harassing, torturing the answering Defendant No.2 for not bringing sufficient dowry in marriage. The Appellant had faced numerous acts of harassment, at the instance of the Respondents, however, the Appellant had kept quiet, for the sake of welfare and future of the two sons.
2.3. The Respondent No.3 was duly served with the summons of the suit and entered appearance on 15.01.2019. The Respondent No.3 filed the written statement and has practically supported the case of the Respondent No.1 and 2.
The Respondent No.3 has admitted that the Respondent No.1 and 2 were joint owners of the suit property. Though the ________________________________________________________________ Kiran Bhola Vs. Soma Rani & Ors. Page No. 7 of 24 RCA DJ No. 158/2019 Respondent No.3 has denied the license-licensee relationship and the allegations about termination of license, however no specific defence has been put forth in the written statement. It is stated that the Respondent No.3 has been trying to convince the Appellant to vacate the suit property, however the appellant is unwilling to leave. The allegations against the Appellant are admitted by the Respondent No.3 in his written statement. The perusal of the written statement of the Respondent No.3 in totality indicates that though the prayer for dismissal of the suit has been made in the written statement, however the Respondent No.3 is only a supporting Defendant.
2.4. The Respondent No.1 and 2 have filed a replication to the written statement of the Appellant, however no replication has been filed to written statement of the Respondent No.3.
2.5. After completion of the pleadings, the admission/denial of the documents was not conducted. The Respondent No. 1 and 2 had filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which was allowed in terms of the impugned judgment and the suit was decreed for the prayers of mandatory injunction and permanent injunction.
3. Submissions:
3.1. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the Court of Ld. Civil Judge has read the admissions from the defence of ________________________________________________________________ Kiran Bhola Vs. Soma Rani & Ors. Page No. 8 of 24 RCA DJ No. 158/2019 the Respondent No.3, who has supported the case of the Respondent No.1 and 2 and has ignored the relevant defence raised by the Appellant. It is submitted that the copies of documents, filed by the Respondent No.1 and 2 were treated to have been proved, even without production of original and certified copies of the same. It is submitted that the effect of right of residence of the Appellant and the proceedings under The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, have not been taken into consideration by the Court of Ld. Civil Judge. It is submitted that there was no admission, on behalf of the Appellant and further the Appellant had raised a triable defence. It is submitted that even in absence of the Appellant's defence, the ground for passing a decree under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was not made out. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Satish Chander Ahuja vs. Sneha Ahuja: AIR 2020 SC 5397."
3.2. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and 2 has submitted that the pleadings of the written statement of the Appellant did not put forth any substantive defence and therefore, the suit did not warrant any trial. It is submitted that the Respondent No.1 and 2 have made out their title, in terms of the relevant documents, which were filed on record and therefore, mere averments about the documents being forged and fabricated would not entitle the Appellant to seek trial in the matter. It is submitted that mere pendency of the ________________________________________________________________ Kiran Bhola Vs. Soma Rani & Ors. Page No. 9 of 24 RCA DJ No. 158/2019 proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, will not create an absolute bar to the right of the Respondent No.1 and 2 to seek eviction of the Appellant, after her license was terminated. It is further submitted that the Appellant cannot seek right to residence against the mother-in-law and the sister-in-law and the right to residence is claimable at best only against the Respondent No.3, who himself did not have any right in the suit property.
Ld. Counsel for Respondent No.1 and 2 has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "Madalsa Sood vs. Maunicka Makkar & Anr.
(10.12.2021)". No arguments have been addressed on behalf of the Respondent No.3, even though the Respondent No.3/Counsel was present and participated in the appeal.
4. Points for determination, Conclusions and reasons for such conclusions:
4.1. The focal point for determination in the present appeal is whether the judgment, under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on admission or on the basis of unviability of the defence of Defendants, could have been passed in view of pleadings of the parties and material on record. The same is being discussed and deliberated upon in detail hereinafter.
4.2. The Respondent No.1 and 2 have filed the suit for prayers of mandatory injunction, permanent injunction and recovery of ________________________________________________________________ Kiran Bhola Vs. Soma Rani & Ors. Page No. 10 of 24 RCA DJ No. 158/2019 mesne profits/ damages. The principal prayer in the suit was of mandatory injunction for removal of the Appellant and the Respondent No.1 from the suit property alongwith their provisions. The case set up in brief by the Respondent No.1 and 2 is that they are joint owners of suit property by virtue of a transfer deed dated 30.04.1992 and the Appellant and the Respondent No.3 were permitted to reside in the suit property as licencees, being the family members. It is submitted that the relationship between the parties worsened, on account of ill behavior and acts of harassment by the Appellant, which compelled the Respondent No.1 and 2 to terminate the licence, however the Appellant and the Respondent No.3 did not vacate the suit property.
4.3. The Respondent No.3 has admitted the principal facts of the case in his written statement. Though there are bare denial of averments of the plaint in the written statement of the Respondent No.3, however no specific defence was put forth for the prayers of the suit.
4.4. The Appellant denied the averments of the plaint. It is submitted that the suit property was owned by grandfather of the Respondent No.3 and sons of the Appellant had legal rights in the same, on account of succession. It is stated by the Appellant that the Respondents by unfair means and by forging documents had got the documents of suit property executed in their favour. It is stated by the Appellant that the suit property is matrimonial home of the Appellant, which ________________________________________________________________ Kiran Bhola Vs. Soma Rani & Ors. Page No. 11 of 24 RCA DJ No. 158/2019 was being occupied by her since her marriage. It is stated by the Appellant that the Respondents are acting in collusion with each-other, in order to evict the Appellant and her two sons from the suit property.
4.5. The Court of Ld. Civil Judge has held that the Respondent No.1 and 2 were owners of the property and the Appellant could only claim right to residence against her husband, i.e., the Respondent No.3 and not against the family members of the husband. It has further been held that the defence of the Appellant was not sustainable in as much as a grandson does not acquire birth right in the property of the grandfather during the life time of his father. The observations of the Court of Ld. Civil Judge are being reproduced hereinbelow:
"Arguments heard. Record perused. Defendant no. 1 has not put up any substantial defense.
The defence set up by him is vague and in fact, he has supported the case of the plaintiffs against defendant no.
2. It is admitted that after the marriage of defendants, the defendants were residing at the first floor of the suit property. The plaintiffs have claimed themselves to be owner of the suit property. Their ownership has been denied by defendant no. 2 on the ground that they have forged the title documents in their favour. The grounds set up by defendant no. 2 is that the plaintiffs can-not claim to be the owners as the children of defendant no. 2 have right in the suit property by virtue of Hindu Law of Succession. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that after the passing of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, inheritance of an ancestral property does not become HUF in the hands of the grand son. Now inheritance of ancestral property is the self acquired property of the ________________________________________________________________ Kiran Bhola Vs. Soma Rani & Ors. Page No. 12 of 24 RCA DJ No. 158/2019 father, in which the sons or grand sons can not claim any right. In this regard, the judgments of Hon' ble Supreme Court in CWT Vs. Chander Singh (1986 3 SCC 567), Yudhishter Vs. Ashok Kumar (1987 1 SCC 204) and jdugment of Hon' ble Delhi Court in Surender Kumar Vs. Dhani Ram & Ors. (2016 1 High Court Cases DEL 17) are significant. Thus, the ground taken for challenging the title of the plaintiffs is not legally available to the defendant no. 2. The plaintiffs have filed documents in support of their title. The court is of the view that the plaintiffs are the owner of the suit property, even though, defendant no.2 has challenged their title. It is admitted case of defendant no.2 that she has resided in the suit property after her marriage, thus, the defendant no. 2, now can not challenge the title of the plaintiffs as the residence in which the defendant no.2 has been residing was provided by the plaintiffs themselves. It is not the case of the defendant no.2 that first floor of the suit property belongs to her. At best, the defendant no.2 can claim right of residence from her husband i.e. defendant no.1. She can not claim any right of residence in the exclusive property of the plaintiffs, against their wishes. Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 2 has relied upon the judgment of Hari Steel and General Industries Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Daljit Singh & Ors. (2019 Law Suit (SC) 1119). However, the said judgment can not help the case of the defendant no. 2 as the ground set up by defendant no. 2 to challenge the documents in favour of the plaintiffs is not legally available to her. Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 2 also relied upon the judgment of Charanjit Singh Vs. Kehar Singh (2006 V AD Delhi
667). The said judgment also does not favour the defendant no. 2 as it was passed in peculiar facts of the case. The title of the plaintiffs is clear and there can not be any dispute about the same. Moreover, in the opinion of this court, both the defendants can not challenge the title of the plaintiffs in lieu of Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act. The Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 2 has also relied upon the interim order passed by Mahila Court under DV Act in favour of the defendant no. 2 on 09.07.2019. The said order can not be ________________________________________________________________ Kiran Bhola Vs. Soma Rani & Ors. Page No. 13 of 24 RCA DJ No. 158/2019 construed so as to curtail the power of this court to order eviction of defendant no. 2, in as much as, the order of eviction would be as per law. The claim of residence of defendant no. 2 lies against defendant no. 1 but not against the exclusive property of plaintiffs. The defendants have not been able to disclose any right to continue their possession of first floor of the suit property in their favour. It is settled law that trial is not necessary in each and every case and if suit can be disposed off on the basis of admitted pleadings and material available on record, the suit ought to be disposed of by exercising the power under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. In this regard, reliance can be placed on Baljeet Kaur Kalra Vs. Surjeet Singh and Ors.
(Manu/DE/1480/2016).
In view of the above, decree of possession is passed under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC against the defendants. Defendants are directed to remove themselves from the first floor of the suit property bearing no. 11/45, Subhash Nagar, Delhi as described in the plaint along with their belongings. The defendants are also restrained from creating any third party interest in the suit property. The defendants are also restrained from taking possession or entering in the third room at the first floor of the suit property. The suit shall continue for the purpose of mesne profits."
4.6. Though, in terms of the above referred observations, the Court of Ld. Civil Judge has concluded that the Respondent No.1 and 2 were the owners of suit property, however, the Court of Ld. Civil Judge has not examined or gone into question as to how the Respondent No.1 and 2 became the owners of the suit property, even if their contentions of being the joint owners are to be accepted on face-value of the averments in the plaint. The Respondent No.1 and 2 has stated in the plaint that they have become owners of the suit property in terms of a Transfer Deed dated 30.04.1992. The ________________________________________________________________ Kiran Bhola Vs. Soma Rani & Ors. Page No. 14 of 24 RCA DJ No. 158/2019 Respondent No.1 and 2 have not purchased the suit property, as is evident from the copies of the documents filed by them in the suit. It appears from the copies of the documents that the suit property was allotted to Mr. Sohna Mal, the father- in-law of the Respondent No.1 and the aforesaid leasehold rights appears to have been transferred in the name of Late Mangat Ram, i.e., the husband of the Respondent No.1, subsequent to the death of late Sohna Mal. The death of Late Sohna Mal and Late Mangat Ram has not been pleaded in the plaint and their death certificates have also not been filed on record. The copy of transfer deed dated 30.04.1992 is filed on record and it is mentioned in the same that the leasehold rights are transferred in the name of the Respondent No.1, on the basis of affidavits and relinquishment deeds of other legal heirs.
4.7. The factual position emerging from the pleadings and copies of the documents, filed on record is thus is that after death of late Mangat Ram, his legal heirs, including the Respondent No.3, became co-owners of the suit property and absolute ownership by the Respondent No.1 and 2 is being claimed on strength of relinquishment deed executed by the Respondent No.3. Therefore, the right in the suit property, in the capacity of absolute owners, were not acquired by the Respondent No.1 and 2, independently of the rights of the Respondent No.3. The aforesaid fact assumes importance as the Appellant can certainly enforce her statutory right to residence against the Respondent No.3.
________________________________________________________________ Kiran Bhola Vs. Soma Rani & Ors. Page No. 15 of 24 RCA DJ No. 158/2019 4.8. Thus in terms of the case of the Respondent No.1 and 2, they appear to have become absolute owners of the suit property, on the basis of the relinquishment deeds executed by the other legal heirs of late Mangat Ram, more particularly by the Respondent No.3. The aforesaid facts have not been pleaded by the Respondents and are to be culled out from the copies of the documents, filed by the them. Though the copy of the transfer deeds dated 30.04.1992 and relinquishment deed dated 13.08.1991 have been filed on record, however the certified copies of the aforesaid documents or the original of the same have not been produced on record. The admission/denial of the documents have also not been conducted till this stage. Mere filing of copies of documents is not proof of validity of the same. The factum of registration of a document, conferring or extinguishing rights in an immovable property, is question of fact, which needs to established on record and such registration can-not be concluded on the basis of filing of mere copy of the document, unless the opposite parties admits the execution and registration of the same.
4.9. The present case is not one where the property is owned by the Respondent No.1 and 2, independent of the rights of the husband of the Appellant. After the death of the common ancestor, the husband of the Appellant had also become owner on account of succession. Even if the husband of the Appellant has executed a Relinquishment deed in favour of ________________________________________________________________ Kiran Bhola Vs. Soma Rani & Ors. Page No. 16 of 24 RCA DJ No. 158/2019 his mother, in order to transfer the title of the suit property to her, the same has to be first pleaded or set out in the pleadings in the first place in order to conclude the ownership of the Respondent No.1 and 2. The aforesaid facts are not even pleaded with clarity in order to be admitted or denied in the written statement. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and 2 has submitted that the Appellant has admitted the documents in written statement and stated that the same were executed by illegally by the Respondents. The aforesaid contention is not an unconditional admission of the documents in favour of the Respondents and is in the nature of challenge to the validity of the documents. The Respondent No.3 is merely a supporting Defendant, who is in dispute with the Appellant and his admission can-not be read to an unconditional admission on behalf of the Appellant. Therefore, the Court has also to assess the possibility of collusion between the Respondent No.1 and 2 on one hand and the Respondent No.3 on the other. The Appellant and the Respondent have strained relationship and the probability of Respondent No.3 supporting the case of eviction against Appellant only on account of the same has also to be assessed and its effect has to be examined.
4.10. Further, even assuming that the Respondent No.3 has executed a relinquishment deed in favour of his mother and sister. The aforesaid relinquishment is a right granted without consideration. It is in the nature of gratuitous transfer and therefore, it has to be examined as to whether in such a case ________________________________________________________________ Kiran Bhola Vs. Soma Rani & Ors. Page No. 17 of 24 RCA DJ No. 158/2019 the Transferee has an absolute right to evict the Transferor, thereby depriving him even the use of the property. The parties to the present suit are Hindus and in terms of Section 28 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, the right to claim maintenance by the dependents of the transferor survives, if the transfer is gratuitous and transferee has notice knowledge of such right. When the dependant of a gratuitous transferor will have right to claim maintenance, then it has be seen as to whether the transferor himself would have no right to reside in such a property and will be liable to be thrown out at the instance of the transferor.
4.11. Though the Court of Ld. Civil Judge has held that Appellant being licencee cannot challenge the right of the Respondent No.1 and 2 and the right to residence is only claimable against the husband and not against the other family members. However the present case is not one in which the ownership is being claimed independent to the right of the husband and the Respondent No.1 and 2 can only claim ownership through the husband, i.e., the Respondent No.3 and if the factum of the execution and registration of the relinquishment deed by the Respondent No.3 is not established, the Appellant can certainly claim right to residence in the same.
4.12. Undoubtedly, mere pendency of the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the Orders passed in the same are not absolute bar to pass an ________________________________________________________________ Kiran Bhola Vs. Soma Rani & Ors. Page No. 18 of 24 RCA DJ No. 158/2019 eviction Order against the daughter-in-law/wife, however the effect of such a proceedings, or the interim or a final Order passed therein or evidence led therein has to be assessed, appreciated and evaluated before an eventual decree of possession/mandatory injunction is passed. The reliance is being placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Satish Chander Ahuja vs. Sneha Ahuja: AIR 2020 SC 5397", and the relevant the observations of the Hon'ble Court are being reproduced hereinbelow:
"153. We take an example to further illustrate the point. In the plaint of suit giving rise to this appeal, the Plaintiff has pleaded that the wife of the Plaintiff has been subjected to various threat and violence in the hands of the Defendant on several occasions. In event, the suit is filed by wife of the Plaintiff against the Defendant for permanent injection and also praying for reliefs Under Section 19 [except Section 19(1)(b)]. The suit be fully maintainable and the prayers in the suit can be covered by the reliefs as contemplated by Section 19 read with Section 26 of the Act, 2005.
154. By a written statement, the Defendant is sure to resist the suit on the ground that she had already filed an application Under Section 12 where Plaintiff Dr. Prem kant Ahuja (mother-in-law of the Defendant) is one of the Respondent and she may also place reliance on the interim order dated 26.11.2016 restraining the Respondents which included Dr. Prem Kant Ahuja from dispossessing the applicant except without obtaining an order of competent Court. The order dated 26.11.2016 which was passed by the Magistrate under D.V. Act, 2005, shall be relevant evidence and fully admissible in the civil suit, but the above order shall only be one of the evidence in the suit but shall neither preclude the civil court to determine the issues ________________________________________________________________ Kiran Bhola Vs. Soma Rani & Ors. Page No. 19 of 24 RCA DJ No. 158/2019 raised in the suit or to grant the relief claimed by the Plaintiff Dr. Prem Kant Ahuja. The Civil Court in such suit can consider the issues and may grant relief if the Plaintiff is able to prove her case. The order passed under D.V. Act whether interim or final shall be relevant and have to be given weight as one of evidence in the civil suit but the evidentiary value of such evidence is limited. The findings arrived therein by the magistrate are although not binding on the Civil Court but the order having passed under the Act, 2005, which is an special Act has to be given its due weight.
155. We need to observe that in event a judgment of criminal court is relevant as per Sections 40 to 43 of Evidence Act in civil proceedings, the judgment can very well be taken note of and there is no embargo on the civil court to place reliance upon it as a corroborative material. We may notice a judgment of Madras High Court in K. Subramani v. Director of Animal Husbandry, Chennai, (2009) 1 MLJ 363 where Madras High Court has made following observations in paragraph 7:
7. A decision of the Criminal Court does not have the effect of binding nature on the proceedings before the Civil Court including the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the reason that the proof in both the Civil and Criminal cases are having two different categories of standards. In criminal cases, guilt of the Accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, while in civil cases, the rights of the parties or matter in issue shall be decided on preponderance of probabilities. If a party to the case relies upon a decision of the criminal Court and insists the Civil Court to give credence to the said decision, it is incumbent upon the party to gather further materials in the case, which would support the observations and the decisions of the criminal Court. If any material is available in the case, which would ________________________________________________________________ Kiran Bhola Vs. Soma Rani & Ors. Page No. 20 of 24 RCA DJ No. 158/2019 corroborate or strengthen the decision of the criminalCourt, then, there is no embargo for the Civil Court to place reliance upon it.
156. We are in full agreement with the above view. There is no embargo in referring to or relying on an admissible evidence, be of a civil court or criminal court both in civil or criminal proceedings.
157. From the above discussions, we arrive at following conclusions:
(i) The pendency of proceedings under Act, 2005 or any order interim or final passed under D.V. Act Under Section 19 regarding right of residence is not an embargo for initiating or continuing any civil proceedings, which relate to the subject matter of order interim or final passed in proceedings under D.V. Act, 2005.
(ii) The judgment or order of criminal court granting an interim or final relief Under Section 19 of D.V. Act, 2005 are relevant within the meaning of Section 43 of the Evidence Act and can be referred to and looked into by the civil court.
(iii) A civil court is to determine the issues in civil proceedings on the basis of evidence, which has been led by the parties before the civil court.
(iv) In the facts of the present case, suit filed in civil court for mandatory and permanent injunction was fully maintainable and the issues raised by the Appellant as well as by the Defendant claiming a right Under Section 19 were to be addressed and decided on the basis of evidence, which is led by the parties in the suit."
Thus, in terms of the above referred legal position, though ________________________________________________________________ Kiran Bhola Vs. Soma Rani & Ors. Page No. 21 of 24 RCA DJ No. 158/2019 the proceedings the Act of 2005 may not be an absolute bar for maintaining the suit for eviction, however the same may be relevant and can be taken into consideration, before any decree for eviction against daughter-in-law is passed. Therefore, effect of suit property of being a shared household under Section 2(s) and under Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the Orders passed in the aforesaid proceedings or the evidence produced therein cannot be ignored altogether and may be relevant if not conclusive on certain factual aspects of the matter and are required to be considered, in view of the peculiar facts of the case.
4.13. In the suit, the admission/denial of the documents was not even conducted, the details as to how the Respondent No.1 and 2 became owners of the suit property are not expressly mentioned in the pleadings and are to be culled out from the copies of the documents on record. The documents filed by the Plaintiffs were only photocopies and their originals/certified copies were not even filed or produced. The aforesaid documents were not admitted. The Respondent No.3 has only acted as a supporting Defendant. Therefore, this Court is of the view that before passing a decree for possession, the rights and ownership of the Respondent No.1 and 2 vis-a-viz the possibility of rights of the Respondent No.3 are to be determined in a conclusive manner. Another fact needed to be examined is whether in case the Appellant is to be eventually evicted, the case on facts is such, where ________________________________________________________________ Kiran Bhola Vs. Soma Rani & Ors. Page No. 22 of 24 RCA DJ No. 158/2019 the Court should observe the entitlement of the Appellant for an alternative accommodation. Therefore, the case entail such questions of fact, as discussed hereinabove, which remains to be established and a decree under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the basis of admission or on the basis of unviability of defence of the Appellant could not have been passed.
4.14. In terms of the discussion and reasons stated hereinabove, this Court is in disagreement with the observations and conclusions of the Court of Ld. Civil Judge and the point of determination is accordingly answered in the negative. The impugned judgment and decree are not legally sustainable.
5. Final Conclusion/Order:
Accordingly, in terms of the discussion/reasons stated hereinabove, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree dated 22.10.2019, passed by the Court of Ld. Civil Judge-05, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Civil Suit No.1663/2018, is hereby set aside and the application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed by the Respondent No.1 and 2 in the suit stands dismissed. The Court of Ld. Civil Judge-05 is directed to proceed further with the matter, after framing of appropriate Issues with regard to the prayers of suit. The parties are directed to appear before the Court of Ld. Civil ________________________________________________________________ Kiran Bhola Vs. Soma Rani & Ors. Page No. 23 of 24 RCA DJ No. 158/2019 Judge-05 on 25.10.2025. A copy of this Order be sent to the Court of Ld. Civil Judge-05 for information. The TCR is also directed to be sent back. The Appeal files be consigned to the record room after due compliance.Digitally signed by ANIL
ANIL CHANDHEL
CHANDHEL Date: 2025.09.24
17:08:53 +0530
Announced in the open Court (ANIL CHANDHEL)
today on 24th of September, 2025 District Judge-04
(West District)
THC/DELHI/24.09.2025
________________________________________________________________ Kiran Bhola Vs. Soma Rani & Ors. Page No. 24 of 24 RCA DJ No. 158/2019