Delhi District Court
Bansraj Yadav vs Ram Chander Yadav on 22 September, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. MANU VEDWAN,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-2, NORTH EAST DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
RCA No. 102/2017
CNR No. DLNE01-008948-2016
Bansraj Yadav
S/o Late Kalu Yadav
R/o J-705, Shiv Gali No. 2,
3-1/2 Pusta, Kartar Nagar,
New Usmanpur, Delhi. .....Appellant
Versus
1. Ram Chander Yadav
S/o Sh. Bansraj Yadav
R/o J-705, 1st Floor, Shiv Gali No. 2,
3-1/2 Pusta, Kartar Nagar,
New Usmanpur, Delhi.
2. Sushma Yadav
W/o Ram Chander Yadav
R/o J-705, 1st Floor, Shiv Gali No. 2,
3-1/2 Pusta, Kartar Nagar,
New Usmanpur, Delhi. ..... Respondents
Date of filing of the present appeal : 18.09.2017 Date of completion of Final Arguments : 22.09.2023 Date of judgment : 22.09.2023 Final Decision : Allowed JUDGMENT-in-APPEAL
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant (plaintiff, before, the Learned Trial Court) against, the impugned judgment and RCA No. 102/2017 Bansraj Yadav Vs. Ram Chander Yadav & Anr. Page No. 1 of 19 decree, dated 09.08.2017, titled as Bansraj Yadav vs. Ram Chander Yadav in Civil Suit no. 5196/2015. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the Court of Learned Judge, ACJ-cum-ARC-cum-ACJ, North East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be denoted as they were before Learned Trial Court. Appellant, herein, Sh. Bansraj Yadav as plaintiff and respondents, namely, Sh. Ram Chander and Smt. Sushma Yadav shall be referred to as defendant.
3. The brief facts as disclosed in the plaint are that the appellant/plaintiff is the father of respondent/defendant number 1 and father-in-law of respondent/defendant number 2. The suit property bearing number J-705, Shiv Gali No. 2, 3-1/2 Pusta, Kartar Nagar, New Usmanpur is the self acquired property of plaintiff. It is further stated that the appellant/plaintiff had purchased the suit property from his savings and by borrowing money from his relatives, in the year 1980. It is further stated that initially the respondent/defendant number 1 and 2 used to reside on the first floor of the suit property alongwith the other family members having common kitchen. It is further stated that the respondent/defendant number 1 is well placed being the Civil Engineer. It is further stated that after marriage and in the influence of respondent/defendant number 2, respondent/defendant number 1 started behaving badly/misbehaving with the appellant/plaintiff and the other family member. It is further stated that respondent/defendant number 1 and 2 used to continuously fight with the appellant/plaintiff and his wife without any reason.
It is further stated that both the respondents/defendants started pressurizing the appellant/plaintiff to hand over the first floor of the suit property exclusively to them. It is further stated that that even at time RCA No. 102/2017 Bansraj Yadav Vs. Ram Chander Yadav & Anr. Page No. 2 of 19 brother of the respondent/defendant number 2 made forcible entry into the house of the plaintiff and misbehaved with his wife. It is further stated that thereafter it has become the routine for both the respondents/defendants to harass the appellant/plaintiff and the other family members. It is further stated that later on, respondent/defendant number 2 had filed various cases against the appellant/plaintiff and other family members. It is also stated that it is the sole intention of respondents/defendants to pressurize the appellant/plaintiff and to grab his property. It is further stated that respondent/defendant number 2, on 18.09.2012 had badly misbehaved with appellant/plaintiff and his wife and called the neighbours also in that fight. It is therefore requested that decree of possession and permanent of injunction be passed in favour of appellant/plaintiff.
4. Written statement was not filed on behalf of respondent/defendant number 1 despite opportunities given. Accordingly, his defence was struck off vide order, dated 16.11.2013.
5. Respondent/defendant number 2, contested the suit by filing her written statement in which apart from denying the allegations of appellant/plaintiff made in the plaint, it is stated by respondent/defendant number 2 that the appellant/plaintiff has filed the present suit in collusion with respondent/defendant number 1 as in some other cases pending between the parties as they are having the same lawyers. It is further stated that the appellant/plaintiff has thus not approached the Court with clean hands. It is further stated that the appellant/plaintiff has also not made party in the present suit as his minor grandson who is also residing in the suit property alongwith the respondent/defendant number 2. It is further stated that this Court has no pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. Appellant/plaintiff has not valued the suit as per RCA No. 102/2017 Bansraj Yadav Vs. Ram Chander Yadav & Anr. Page No. 3 of 19 law. Appellant/plaintiff has also filed a wrong site plan and as such his suit is liable to be dismissed. It is further stated that the appellant/plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit because the appellant/plaintiff is not the owner of suit property. It is further stated that the documents relied upon by plaintiff regarding his ownership over the suit property are hit by section 17 of Indian Registration Act and as well as against the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgment titled as Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana & Anr (2012) SCC 656.
It is further stated that the suit of the appellant/plaintiff is also hit by Order II 2 Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure and by section 10 and 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and section 41 (f) to (j) of Specific Relief Act as various cases/complaints are pending against the appellant/plaintiff before the different Courts and also before Crime Against Women Cell. It is further stated that the appellant/plaintiff alongwith other family members is in the habit of beating of defendant number 2. It is further stated that the appellant/plaintiff has never taken care of Master Akash and respondent/defendant number 2, instead, appellant/plaintiff alongwith other family members tortured both of them. It is further stated that no document is required in law as has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff which shows that the suit property is the self acquired property of appellant/plaintiff. It is further stated that suit property instead is a shared household and respondent/defendant number 2 is residing in the suit property on that basis. It is further stated that the appellant/plaintiff in collusion with respnodent/defendant number 1 had tortured respondent/defendant number 2 and her son on various occasions and kept on torturing her. It is further stated that even respondent/defendant number 1 had always favoured the appellant/plaintiff and other family members as he wanted to get rid off respondent/defendant number 2 and her son. It is therefore requested that there is no merit in the suit of the RCA No. 102/2017 Bansraj Yadav Vs. Ram Chander Yadav & Anr. Page No. 4 of 19 appellant/plaintiff and it be dismissed.
6. Replication to the written statement of the respondent/defendant number 2 filed by the appellant/plaintiff. In the replication, apart from denying the allegations of respondent/defendant number 2, appellant/plaintiff had reiterated the contents of plaint.
7. Vide order dated 16.11.2013, the following issues were framed:-
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the suit property as prayed? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP
3. Whether this Court has no territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit as alleged? OPD2.
4. Relief.
8. Plaintiff in order to prove his case stepped into the witness box as PW1. He reiterated the facts as are mentioned by him in his plaint. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.P1 and relied upon the documents i.e. General Power of Attorney, dated 09.05.1980 as Ex. PW1/1 (OSR), agreement and receipt, both dated 09.05.1980 as Ex. PW1/2 (colly) (OSR), computerized pay slip of plaintiff as Ex.PW1/3, site plan as Ex.PW1/4 (OSR) and Complaint as Ex. PW1/5 (colly). PW1 was cross examined at length by Learned Counsel for respondent/defendant number
2.
9. After completion of plaintiff's evidence, defendant number 2 led her piece of evidence. In her evidence, she reiterated the same facts as are RCA No. 102/2017 Bansraj Yadav Vs. Ram Chander Yadav & Anr. Page No. 5 of 19 mentioned by her in her written statement which are not repeated here for the sake of brevity. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.DW2/A. DW2 was cross examined at length by Learned Counsel for appellant/plaintiff.
10. Subsequently thereto, the matter was fixed for final arguments which were heard conclusively. After, hearing the final arguments, Learned Trial Court had come to the conclusion, vide, judgment and decree dated 09.08.2017, that, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the possession of the suit property as well as relief of permanent injunction was denied to him on the following grounds:- (a) As it was accepted as an admitted position at the time of passing of judgment by the Learned Trial Court that both the respondents/defendants especially respondent/defendant number 2 is residing in the suit property since the time of her marriage and suit property is a shared household having common kitchen. (b) It is also observed/discussed by the Learned Trial Court, while, coming to the abovesaid conclusion that the concepts/law discussed in the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is relevant in present civil proceedings and therefore, relying upon the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 viz. section 2
(a), 2 (f), 2(s), 2(q), section 12, 17 and 19, it was summed up that respondent/defendant number 2 has unconditional rights of residence in a shared household/suit property. It is accordingly, concluded that as the family of appellant/plaintiff and respondents/defendants is a joint family therefore, respondent/defendant number 2 has a right to reside in the suit property. Though, at the same time, it is also observed by the Learned Trial Court that the appellant/plaintiff has failed to produce on record the relevant proof of his ownership over the suit property thereby, distinguished the present case from the observations made in judgment titled as S.R. Batra & Anr. vs. Taruna Batra (2007) 3 SCC 169.
RCA No. 102/2017 Bansraj Yadav Vs. Ram Chander Yadav & Anr. Page No. 6 of 19
11. Later on, the appellant/plaintiff aggrieved by the aforementioned decision preferred this appeal. Appellant/plaintiff in his appeal filed qua the judgment and, decree dated 09.08.2017, passed by Learned Trial Court had raised the following grounds of appeal:- It is stated that the original suit was not a counter blast to the cases filed by the respondent/defendant number 2 as claimed by latter. It is further stated that in fact the original suit as well as this appeal is just to acquire peaceful possession of the property of the appellant/plaintiff. It is further stated that the appellant/plaintiff does not want any interference of the son and daughter- in-law in consonance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.R. Batra & Anr. vs. Taruna Batra (2007) 3 SCC 169. It is further stated that daughter-in-law of appellant/plaintiff alongwith his son had ill-treated the appellant/plaintiff and therefore appellant/plaintiff was constrained to file the present suit for eviction against them. Appellant/plaintiff wants to live in his self acquired property/house peacefully and without any interference. It is further stated that Learned Civil Judge had ignored the recent rulings of Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the facts in issue and instead relied upon one very old judgment in case titled as State of Orissa vs. Sudhanshu Sekhdar Mines (1970) ILLJ 662. It is further stated that Learned Civil Judge had made serious mistake in considering the self owned property of appellant/plaintiff as the matrimonial home of the respondent/defendant number 2. Learned Civil Judge had also ignored the law of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 especially the section 55 (1)(f) while passing the judgment.
It is further stated that the Learned Civil Judge had failed to consider the original papers of the property in the name of appellant/plaintiff. It is stated that all these papers were pertained to the year 1980 and as such allowed to be taken on record/validated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RCA No. 102/2017 Bansraj Yadav Vs. Ram Chander Yadav & Anr. Page No. 7 of 19 judgment titled as Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana & Anr (2012) SCC 656. It is further stated that the daughter- in-law has right in her husband's property/ancestral property, but, has no right in her father-in-law or mother-in-law self acquired property till they are alive. It is further stated that it is specifically time and again reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other Superior Courts that there is no right of daughter-in-law in the self acquired property of father-in-law. It is further stated that the Learned Civil Judge had given wrong prominence to the concept of common kitchen when there is nothing exists like this. It is stated that instead both the respondents/defendants had breached the peace of appellant/plaintiff. It is further stated that both the respondents/defendants behaved very badly with the appellant/plaintiff and therefore he wanted them to evict from his property. It is the appellant/plaintiff who had purchased the property from his own funds and got it constructed as well and therefore, appellant/plaintiff has all the rights to decide with whom to reside in the property. It is thus requested that the judgment and decree, dated 09.08.2017, passed by Learned Trial Court in C.S. No. 5196/2015 be set aside.
12. Despite opportunities given, reply to the objections of appellant/plaintiff was not filed by the respondent/defendant number 1.
Reply has been filed by respondent number 2 in which apart from denying the contentions raised by the appellant/plaintiff, it is stated that no legal question as such has been raised by the appellant/plaintiff in his appeal. It is further stated that appellant/plaintiff has not been able to point out any infirmity or irregularity in the judgment, dated 09.08.2017, and as such the appeal is liable to dismissed. It is further stated that the judgment relied upon by the appellant/plaintiff that is S.R. Batra & Anr. vs. Taruna Batra (2007) 3 SCC 169 does not apply to the present facts and RCA No. 102/2017 Bansraj Yadav Vs. Ram Chander Yadav & Anr. Page No. 8 of 19 circumstances of the case. It is further stated that appellant/plaintiff is not able to point out as to how the judgment of Administrative of Civil Judge, dated 09.08.2017, is against the proposition of law. It is also stated that only after considering the evidence led by the appellant/plaintiff before the Learned Trial Court, it was proved that the house in question was the matrimonial home and the shared household of respondent/defendant number 2. It is also stated that appellant/plaintiff was not able to prove any cruel/bad treatment meted out by the respondent/defendant number 2 to the appellant/plaintiff. It is further stated that appellant/plaintiff has miserably failed to bring on record the evidence to prove that the property in question is the self acquired property of the appellant/plaintiff. It is further stated that the suit property being the matrimonial shared household, the respondent/defendant number 2 has every right to reside there. It is therefore requested that appeal of appellant/plaintiff be dismissed.
13. I have heard the arguments from both sides on the grounds of appeals in detail and perused the impugned judgment as well as evidence adduced by both parties including the written submissions filed by the both the parties.
In the written submissions filed by the appellant/plaintiff, apart from reiterating the facts of the case, testimony of witness and the grounds of the appeal, it is stated that the impugned judgment failed to appreciate the facts that the onus of proving the entitlement regarding recovery of possession of the suit property is basically governed by the principle of preponderance of probabilities which the appellant/plaintiff has successfully discharged. It is further stated that appellant/plaintiff has proved his ownership over the suit property by producing the General Power of Attorney, dated 09.05.1980. It is further stated that as observed in the case of Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana & Anr RCA No. 102/2017 Bansraj Yadav Vs. Ram Chander Yadav & Anr. Page No. 9 of 19 (2012) SCC 656 transaction undergone by the appellant/plaintiff to purchase the suit property is completely valid. It is further stated that as the suit property is the self acquired property of the appellant/plaintiff therefore, respondents/defendants have no right, title or interest in the same. Appellant/plaintiff has also relied upon section 19 of the Indian Evidence Act and judgment viz. Hardeep Kaur vs. Kailash & Anr, 2012 SCC online Delhi 2937 and Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel vs. Vatsalaben Ashokbhai Patel & Ors. (2008) 4 SCC 649 in order to substantiate his claim/ownership over the suit property. It is further stated that the impugned judgment is based upon erroneous interpretation of law and ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is further stated that the appellant/plaintiff has all the right to have the peaceful possession of the suit property. It is further stated that the appellant/plaintiff being the owner of the suit property is the master of the same. It is further stated that for the purpose of safety and peace of the mind, respondents/defendants be directed to deliver the peaceful possession of the suit property. It is further stated that Learned Trial Court had erroneously interpreted the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.R. Batra & Anr. vs. Taruna Batra (2007) 3 SCC 169. It is further stated that even as per the judgment of Shumita Didi Sandhu vs. Sanjay Singh & Ors, 2007 (96) DRJ 697 the wife can claim the right of residence only against her husband.
It is further stated that the appellant/plaintiff and his wife were ill treated by the respondents/defendants and it is not possible for them to live with the respondents/defendants. It is further stated that Learned Civil Judge had erroneously relied upon ancient citations and principles of law which hold no good in the present scenario. It is further stated that the Learned Civil Judge had given prominence to the phrase common kitchen which is a futile ground as there is nothing common between the parties. It is further stated that Learned Trial Court had decided the matter as it is a RCA No. 102/2017 Bansraj Yadav Vs. Ram Chander Yadav & Anr. Page No. 10 of 19 domestic claim under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which is absolutely wrong. It is further stated that as per S.R. Batra & Anr. vs. Taruna Batra (2007) 3 SCC 169, daughter-in-law has no right in the self acquired property of parents in law. It is further stated that the cardinal principle of justice and equity is that one cannot be allowed to take advantage of his wrongs. It is further stated that it is the peculiar situation in the instant case that the respondents/defendants who are major, capable of earning had forced the old appellant/plaintiff to file the present case for seeking possession of his own property. It is further stated that Learned Trial Court had blind foldedly accepted the arguments of respondents/defendants without seeking any proof of the domestic violence as such from the side of appellant/plaintiff. It is therefore requested that the judgment passed by the Learned Trial be set aside and the appeal of the appellant/plaintiff be accepted. Ld. Counsel for appellant/plaintiff has relied upon the following judgments i.e. Ravneet Kaur vs. Prithpal Singh Dhingra, RFA No. 832/2018 & CM Appl. No. 54495/2019, Aarti Sharma & Anr. Vs. Ganga Saran, RSA 14/2021 & CM APPLs. 3964/2021 and Satish Chander Ahuja vs. Sneha Ahuja, Civil Appeal No. 3483/2020, decided on 15.10.2020. It is to be noted that all these judgments perused very carefully in light of understanding that every case has it's own peculiar facts and circumstances. The position of law is now quite clear by the successive recent rulings especially of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Satish Chander Ahuja vs. Sneha Ahuja (2021) 1 SCC 414 and Prabha Tyagi vs. Kamlesh Devi in Criminal Appeal No. 511/2022 dated 12.05.2022.
On the other hand, respondent/defendant number 2 has in his written submissions apart from reiterating the facts as are mentioned in the written statement, testimony of respondent/defendant number 2 and the objections qua the appeal, stated that the Learned Trial Court has very well relied upon the judgment of Eveneet Singh vs. Prashant Chaudhary, 177 (2011) RCA No. 102/2017 Bansraj Yadav Vs. Ram Chander Yadav & Anr. Page No. 11 of 19 DLT 124. It is also stated by respondent/defendant number 2 that Learned Trial Court has also noted down the fact that the appellant/plaintiff has failed to prove his ownership rights on the property in question as the documents relied upon by the appellant/plaintiff regarding his ownership over the suit property are not proved in accordance with law. It is also stated that after going through the cross examination of appellant/plaintiff recorded before the Learned Trial Court, it can easily be summed up that he was not able to prove his case in terms of preponderance of probabilities. Accordingly, the Court was perfectly right in giving the finding in favour of respondent/defendant number 2. Thereafter, respondent/defendant number 2 has stated that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has always stressed that the burden of proof lies upon the plaintiff to prove his case and the weakness of the defence of the defendant does not discharge that burden in any manner.
It is also stated that Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Om Prakash Gupta & Anr. vs. Anjani Gupta & Anr, CRL M.C. No. 5188/2013, Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Smt. Khushboo Shukla vs. District Magistrate, Lucknow & Ors, Misc. Single No. 16212/2021, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Prabha Tyagi vs. Kamlesh Devi, CRL Appeal No. 511/2022 have observed that in-laws cannot evict the daughter-in-law as such and the latter has all the rights to reside in their property. It is therefore requested that the respondent/defendant number 2 has all the right to reside in the property. Learned counsel for respondent/defendant number 2 has also relied upon judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Rangammal vs. Kuppuswami & Anr, 2011 (212) SCC 220, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Jagdambey Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. J.S. Vohra, RFA No. 80/2015. It is to be noted that all these judgments perused very carefully in light of understanding that every case has it's own peculiar facts and circumstances. The position of law is now quite clear by the successive RCA No. 102/2017 Bansraj Yadav Vs. Ram Chander Yadav & Anr. Page No. 12 of 19 recent rulings especially of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Satish Chander Ahuja vs. Sneha Ahuja (2021) 1 SCC 414 and Prabha Tyagi vs. Kamlesh Devi in Criminal Appeal No. 511/2022 dated 12.05.2022.
14. Analysis and Findings:- Undoubtedly, plaintiff must establish his case and he will not automatically succeed merely because of the failure of the defendant to establish his case. A party has to plead the case and produce / adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate his submissions made in the plaint and in case the pleadings are not complete, the Court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. Burden of proof lies upon the plaintiff and it is he who has to prove the fact and it never shifts, while the onus shifts. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence. It needs to be understood that in civil case a mere preponderance of probability due regard being had to the burden of proof must be a sufficient basis of decision. It is the evaluation of the result drawn by the applicability of the rule, which makes the difference. Reliance is placed upon Life Insurance Corporation of India v Ram Pal Singh Bisen, (2010) 4 SCC 491, Ram Bhajan v Abdul Rahman, AIR 1997 AII 17, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v Bajrang Lal, (2014) 4 SCC 693.
One of the most important questions raised by way of present appeal on behalf of appellant/plaintiff is that the status of the respondents/defendants and especially that of respondent/defendant number 2 is not different as that of the status of the person who is in the possession of the suit property which is in the name/title of other person. This particular contention/submission needs to be explained by appellant/plaintiff whose title to property is questioned by the respondent/defendant number 2 and to some extent this objection to title was also accepted by Learned Trial Court while passing impugned judgment. Thus, the question of ownership over the suit property is RCA No. 102/2017 Bansraj Yadav Vs. Ram Chander Yadav & Anr. Page No. 13 of 19 taken firstly having bearing on other equally important issue. In the instant case, plaintiff had relied upon the General Power of Attorney, Agreement and receipt pertaining to the suit property executed by Sh. Munshi S/o Sh. Parshadi on ,09.05.1980, which are Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/2 (colly). Though, it is stated by respondent/defendant number 2 that her husband who is respondent/defendant number 1 had also contributed in the purchase of suit property, but, as such absolutely no piece of evidence was led in that regard with respect to these aforementioned documents in favour of appellant/plaintiff. In landmark case of Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana & Anr (2012) SCC 656, it was settled that the decision mentioned, therein, should be made applicable prospectively to avoid hardship. The agreement to sell as such may not create any interest in the property under section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, but, the agreement alongwith the payment of entire sale consideration, handing over of the possession, execution of receipt may create the interest in the property within the meaning of section 202 of the Contract Act.
No doubt, purchaser that is appellant/plaintiff may not be a classical owner of suit property as would be owner under a duly registered sale deed, but surely he would have better rights/entitlement of the possession of the suit property. It is to be noted that the right to possession of an immovable property arises not only from a complete ownership right in the property but having a better title or better entitlement/right to possession of property. Reliance is placed upon Hardeep Kaur vs. Kailash & Anr, 2012 SCC online Delhi 2937. It can be safely said here that the appellant/plaintiff to extent of having ownership over suit property is able to discharge the burden of proof lying upon him. The title of suit property as is required by law to be proved has been proved by appellant/plaintiff in light of preponderance of probabilities and at the same time onus lying RCA No. 102/2017 Bansraj Yadav Vs. Ram Chander Yadav & Anr. Page No. 14 of 19 upon respondent/defendant number 2 remains undischarged. Therefore, the question that whether the suit premises belongs to the appellant/plaintiff is settled, appellant/plaintiff having the better title and in light of preponderance of probabilities is owner of suit premises.
Now, moving further is the question that whether the suit could be simply decreed by the Learned Trial Court just on the basis of title without weighing the effect and statutory right in favour of the respondent/defendant number 2. Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, Volume 22, Page 650 deals with the right of occupation in matrimonial home and other rights. In England, the right of the spouses to the matrimonial home are governed by the provisions of Matrimonial Homes Act, 1983. The concept of right of the occupation in matrimonial home was first legalized and made a part of statutory law in the 2005 Act. At this stage, it is not out of place to say that the enactment of Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is a milestone for the protection of women. In that Act, as per it's statement of objections and reasons, three international conventions were taken into account including the landmark Convention on Elimination of all forms of discrimination against the women. Basically, this Act was to provide a remedy which is an amalgamation of Civil Rights of the complainant and the intention was to protect women against violence of any kind as observed in Kunapareddy vs Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari (2016) 1 SCC 774.
The entire scheme of the Act is to provide the immediate relief to the aggrieved person with respect to the shared household where the aggrieved person lives or has lived. The object and purpose of this Act was to grant the right to residence alongwith other rights the former is higher right in favour of a wife. Reliance is placed upon Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel vs. Vatsalaben Ashokbhai Patel & Ors. (2008) 4 SCC 649. These not so RCA No. 102/2017 Bansraj Yadav Vs. Ram Chander Yadav & Anr. Page No. 15 of 19 normal provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 must be understood and appreciated in light of the prevalent culture of subjugation of woman/their inadequae education/financial capacity. No doubt, right to residence given to a daughter-in-law/woman without having ownership rights in Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has been the subject matter of numerous decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as Hon'ble Delhi High Court. But, at the same time, suits for possession instituted by in-laws are very much maintainable though at the same time while, deciding these suits statutory rights of daughter-in-law cannot be ignored.
In the instant case no doubt, since inception, respondent/defendant number 2 (daughter-in-law) has specifically pleaded that the house, where she had started residing just after her marriage with respondent/defendant number 1 is her matrimonial home. But at the same time, it is to be seen that appellant/plaintiff (father-in-law) is a senior citizen who wants to lead a peaceful life without any skirmishes. The balancing of these equally important rights is required to be made or say that mutual rights of both parties need to be adequately balanced. The balancing of both these important rights have been well accepted/discussed in Satish Chander Ahuja vs. Sneha Ahuja (2021) 1 SCC 414 and to some extent in Prabha Tyagi vs. Kamlesh Devi in Criminal Appeal No. 511/2022 dated 12.05.2022. Further, in Ambika Jain vs. Ram Prakash Sharma & Anr, (2019) 12 DEL CK 0363, it was held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that "...In these circumstances, the impugned judgments cannot be sustained and are accordingly set aside. The matters are remanded back to the trial Court for fresh adjudication in accordance with the directions given hereinbelow:
(i) At the first instance, in all cases where the respondent"s son/the appellant"s husband has not been impleaded, the trial Court shall direct his impleadment by invoking its suo RCA No. 102/2017 Bansraj Yadav Vs. Ram Chander Yadav & Anr. Page No. 16 of 19 motu powers under Order I Rule 10 CPC.
(ii) The trial Court will then consider whether the appellant had made any unambiguous admission about the respondent"s ownership rights in respect of the suit premises; if she has and her only defence to being dispossessed therefrom is her right of residence under the DV Act, then the trial Court shall, before passing a decree of possession on the sole premise of ownership rights, ensure that in view of the subsisting rights of the appellant under the DV Act, she is provided with an alternate accommodation as per Section 19(1)(f) of the DV Act, which will continue to be provided to her till the subsistence of her matrimonial relationship.
(iii) In cases where the appellant specifically disputes the exclusive ownership rights of the respondents over the suit premises notwithstanding the title documents in their favour, the trial Court, while granting her an opportunity to lead evidence in support of her claim, will be entitled to pass interim orders on applications moved by the respondents, directing the appellant to vacate the suit premises subject to the provision of a suitable alternate accommodation to her under Section 19(1)(f) of the DV Act, which direction would also be subject to the final outcome of the suit...."
Further, it has been held in judgment titled as Sneha Ahuja vs. Satish Chander Ahuja decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 18.12.2019 that "....At this stage reference may also be made to a recent decision dated 29.11.2019 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Vinay Verma vs. Kanika Pasricha & Anr. CM(M) 1582/2018 in which case, even though there was no pending domestic violence proceedings under the DV Act which is the primary issue arising in the present appeals, some broad guidelines have been laid down to determine as to who should bear the obligation of providing alternate accommodation to the daughter-in- law; whether it should be on the in-laws or the husband under Section 19 (1)(f) of the DV Act. The guidelines, set down in paragraph 46 of the decision read asunder:
"1. The court/tribunal has to first ascertain the nature of the relationship between the parties and the RCA No. 102/2017 Bansraj Yadav Vs. Ram Chander Yadav & Anr. Page No. 17 of 19 son's/daughter's family.
2. If the case involves eviction of a daughter in law, the court has to also ascertain whether the daughter-in-law was living as part of a joint family.
3. If the relationship is acrimonious, then the parents ought to be permitted to seek eviction of the son/daughter-in-law or daughter/son-in-law from their premises. In such circumstances, the obligation of the husband to maintain the wife would continue in terms of the principles under the DV Act.
4. If the relationship between the parents and the son are peaceful or if the parents are seen colluding with their son, then, an obligation to maintain and to provide for the shelter for the daughter-in-law would remain both upon the in-laws and the husband especially if they were living as part of a joint family. In such a situation, 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....."
15. Therefore, in the view of aforementioned discussion, the impugned judgment and decree, dated 09.08.2017, cannot be sustained and are accordingly set aside. The matter is thus remanded back to the Learned Trial Court for fresh adjudication in the light of recent developments/right of daughter-in-law being different from simple possessor/balancing of rights of senior citizen vis-a-vis daughter-in-
RCA No. 102/2017 Bansraj Yadav Vs. Ram Chander Yadav & Anr. Page No. 18 of 19 law. Though, at the same, it is clarified that the Learned Trial Court is absolutely at liberty to reach it's own decision, of course, keeping in view prevailing law. Learned Trial Court is also free to consider the aspect that respondent/defendant number 1 (husband) has never bothered to file any pleadings/evidence/or even propound the arguments on his behalf either before the Learned Trial Court or before this Court.
Also, before parting with the judgment, it needs to be clarified that the question with respect to the ownership of the suit property is now modified and settled by this Court, but, with respect to the question of right of respondent/defendant number 2 to reside in suit property, case is hereby remanded back to be decided afresh by Learned Trial Court in light of recent developments of law.
16. In view of my foregoing observations on all the issues, appeal of the appellant/plaintiff deserves to be allowed. The same is accordingly hereby allowed.
17. TCR be sent back with the copy of this judgment.
18. Parties are directed to appear before the Learned Trial Court on 07.10.2023.
19. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
(Manu Vedwan) Addl. District Judge-02(NE)-01 Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Announced in the open court today i.e. 22nd September, 2023 RCA No. 102/2017 Bansraj Yadav Vs. Ram Chander Yadav & Anr. Page No. 19 of 19