Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10.Kavita Gambir Vs. Hari Chand Gambir, RFA No.179/08 decided on 07.09.2009 by DHC . In this case the property in the name of in­laws of appellant was held to be joint family property, in the absence of any evidence by the in­laws to Suit No.5/14 Chottey Lal Vs. Sunita Gangwal show it to be a self acquired property and only a bald allegation was made to this effect and in this case PW­1 i.e. father­in­law who was only examined as a plaintiff witness in his cross examination admitted that " before the construction of the suit property he was residing in a house in Gurgaon which belonged to his father and he also stated that it was the only house which he father had left. He further stated that he and his brothers and sisters had given that house to the widow of one of their brothers". These fact emerging out in the cross examination of the plaintiff shows that when the suit plot was acquired the plaintiff no.1 was in possession of some property which was ancestral in his hands as well as in the hands of his brothers and sisters. So, existence of that ancestral property in the facts of this case did constitute the joint family nucleus which in my view was sufficient to shift the burden to the plaintiffs to show by adducing sufficient evidence, which could not only in their special knowledge, that the suit property was purchased and constructed with the personal money of plaintiff No.1 Hari Chand Gambhir, wherein plaintiff failed as they could not show sufficient earnings/ savings in their hands and the relevant time of construction of the suit property as no evidence was led on their behalf. It was further held that if the plaintiffs are not asking their son to move out from the house, then they cannot simply asked their daughter­in­law alone to move out of their house and if actually plaintiffs have revoked their the permission/ licence to their sons to stay in their house, then they have to obtain a decree of possession against their son because of his failure to surrender vacant possession of the property in his occupation and only in that way they can get their son's family also evicted. Unless the plaintiffs get a declaration against their own son Anil Gambhir that he having failed to put them in possession of their property by moving out of the first floor of their property alongwith his family despite revocation of the permission which they had given to him to stay on the first floor they were Suit No.5/14 Chottey Lal Vs. Sunita Gangwal entitled to get him and his family evicted through a decree of the court they cannot claim that the occupation of their daughter­in­law Kavita Gambhir was unauthorized. Now, whether the plaintiffs son was living there as a tenant or as a licencee or in any other capacity could be known only if he had been impleaded in the suit by the plaintiffs and in whatever capacity their son was permitted by them to occupy the first floor of 'privity' was between them and their son and not between them and their daughter­in­law and the husband was a necessary party and suit should have filed only against him and in the absence of any pleadings that occupation of their son was only permissive and which have been revoked the suit is not maintainable against daughter­in­law. It is further held that it is not necessary the possession of both husband and wife was actual. It can be constructive also.