Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.22 seconds)
Aarti Kumari @ Menka vs Rakesh Kummar Chhabra & Anr on 23 October, 2019 cites

S.R. Batra And Anr vs Smt. Taruna Batra on 15 December, 2006

9. Vide order dated 22.01.2019, the First Appellate Court i.e. of the Court of the learned ADJ-02 (East District), KKD Courts, Delhi, it was held to the effect that the appellant therein i.e. the appellant herein and the respondent no.2 therein i.e. the respondent no.2 herein and her husband occupied the 2nd Floor of the suit property and there was nothing on record to suggest that they were sharing a common mess with the respondent no.1 therein i.e. the respondent no.1 herein, which was one of the criteria in SR Batra's case (supra) to determine a joint family and upheld the view taken by the learned Civil Judge-East that the son and the daughter-in-law of the plaintiff of the suit arrayed as the respondent no.1 herein were not only licensees but only permissive RSA 61/2019 Page 7 of 15 users in the property owned by the respondent no.1 herein i.e. the plaintiff of the suit and that the appellant and the respondent no.2 herein had no right, title or interest during their lifetime in the suit property and that there was no illegality in the order of the learned Civil Judge-East, KKD Courts, Delhi granting the permanent and mandatory injunction that had been granted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 675 - M Katju - Full Document

Savitri Devi vs Manoj Kumar & Anr on 18 September, 2013

6. The contention that the appellant herein raised before the learned Civil Judge-East, KKD Courts, Delhi that the said premises on the 2nd Floor of J-1/C, Laxmi Nagar, Near Jagat Ram Park, Delhi- 110092 formed her matrimonial home and a shared household, in which she had a legal right to reside and that she could not be dispossessed from the same by her father-in-law,- was rejected by the learned Civil Judge-East observing to the effect that the suit property neither belonged to the husband of the appellant i.e. the respondent no.2 herein nor had it been taken on rent by the husband of the appellant herein nor was it a joint family property of which the husband of the appellant herein was a member nor was it an ancestral property and thus, did not fall within the ambit of Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The learned RSA 61/2019 Page 4 of 15 Civil Judge-East, KKD Courts, Delhi thus, held that the daughter-in- law of the respondent no.1 i.e. the appellant herein had no right in the suit property in terms of the verdict of this Court in "Savitri Devi Vs. Manoj Kumar and Anr." III (2013) DMC 689, wherein it was held to the effect:-
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 4 - J Nath - Full Document

Shumita Didi Sandhu vs Sanjay Singh Sandhu & Others on 26 October, 2010

"26. If the aforesaid submission is accepted, then it will mean that wherever the husband and wife lived together in the past that becomes a shared household. It is quite possible that the husband and RSA 61/2019 Page 5 of 15 wife may have lived together in dozen of places e.g. with the husband's father, husband's paternal grand parents, his maternal parents, uncles, .aunts, brothers, sisters, nephews, nieces, etc. If the interpretation canvassed by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent is accepted, all these houses of the husband's relatives will be shared households and the wife can well insist in living in all these houses of her husband's relative merely because she had stayed with her husband for some time in those houses in the past. Such a view would lead to chaos and would be absurd.", and reference was also made by the learned Civil Judge-East, KKD Courts, Delhi to the verdict of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in "Shumita Didi Sandhu Vs. Sanjay Singh Sandhu & Ors."
Delhi High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 132 - B D Ahmed - Full Document
1