IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CM(M) No.887/2014 DATE OF DECISION : 25th September, 2014 SMT. SALONI MAHAJAN Through: Mr. Puneet Saini, Advocate....Petitioner VERSUS SHERI MADAN MOHAN VIG Through:... Respondent CORAM: HON BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL) C.M. No.16075/2014 (exemption) 1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. C.M.(M) No.887/2014 and C.M. Nos.16073-74/2014 2. This petition is filed by the defendant in the suit impugning the order of the trial court dated 13.5.2014 which has allowed the injunction application of the respondent/plaintiff and restrained the petitioner/defendant from forcibly interfering in the peaceful possession of the respondent/plaintiff of the suit property bearing no.a-300, Vikaspuri, Delhi. 3. Petitioner/defendant was married to the son of the respondent/plaintiff, one Mr. Rahul Vig, on 31.7.2010. At the time of marriage, son of the respondent/plaintiff was working in Denmark and the petitioner/defendant subsequently joined her husband Sh. Rahul Vig at Denmark. The suit property is exclusively owned by the
respondent/plaintiff/the father-in-law, and in whose favour there is a Conveyance Deed dated 31.5.2001 executed by the DDA. According to the respondent/plaintiff, the petitioner/defendant never stayed at this house except for a few hours or at best a few days for it to be a matrimonial home, and in any case it was further pleaded that the suit house was not the matrimonial home because it was exclusively owned by the respondent/plaintiff and therefore the petitioner/defendant had no right to forcibly enter into possession of the suit property or disturb the possession of the respondent/plaintiff. 4. Trial court has dealt with the relevant aspects in paras 5 to 8 of the impugned order dated 13.05.2014 and which read as under:- 5. The plaintiff has filed the present suit praying for grant of permanent injunction. The plaintiff has also moved an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC praying for interim injunction till the disposal of the suit. The relief sought by the plaintiff is opposed by the defendant mainly on two grounds:- Firstly, it is stated by the defendant that the plaintiff has concealed various facts, therefore, on the ground of concealment of the facts, the plaintiff is not entitled for grant of discretionary relief. It is stated by the defendant that the plaintiff has concealed the factum of the birth of grandson and operative order of injunction dated 07.12.2012. It is also stated that the plaintiff has concealed the factum of social marriage form the suit premises on 18.02.2011. The Code of Civil procedure lays down the rule to be followed in civil suits. The CPC has defined that only the relevant facts are required to be pleaded by a party while approaching the court. The rules of CPC are clear that only the relevant facts are need to be pleaded by the parties. This is not necessary for the parties to plead each and every fact concerning the parties while filing the suit. The fact as stated by the defendant does not prima facie seems to be connected with the relief of permanent injunction prayed by the plaintiff. Therefore, the concealment of the same or non mentioninng of the same in the pleadings does not disentitle the plaintiff form grant of discretionary relief. This contention of the defendant is not tenable in the eyes of law. Secondly, the defendant has raised the issue that the suit premises is the matrimonial/shared household of the defendant and she has a right to reside in the same. The plaintiff has claimed himself has a owner of the suit property by virtue of the conveyance deed executed by the DDA dated 31.05.2001. The plaintiff has filed on record, the copy of the conveyance
deed alongwigh suit. The plaintiff has admitted that the defendant is the daughter in law of the plaintiff however the plaintiff denied any rights of the defendant on the ground that the suit property is the self acquired property of the plaintiff and the defendant never used the same as matrimonial/shared household. The relevant case law judgments which are the guiding principles on this issue are need to be perused: (i) S.R.Batra vs Taruna Batra (2007) 3 SCC 169 wherein Hon ble Supreme Court held that There is no law in India like the British Matrimonial homes Act, 1967 and in cay case the rights which may be available under any law can only be as against the husband and not against the father in law or mother in law. As regards Section 17(1) of the Act, in our opinion the wife is only entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household, and a shared household would only meant the house belonging to taken on rent by the husband or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member. (ii) I have also relied upon one judgment of Hon ble High Court of Delhi reported as 199 (2013) DLT titled as Barun Kumar Nahar Vs Parul Nahar wherein Hon ble High Court of Delhi held that The defendant being a daughter in law has no right to reside in subject property which belongs to her father in law as said property is not covered by definition of shared household same being neither a joint family property in which her husband is a member. Defendant being a daughter in law of plaintiff, has no right as against plaintiff father in law, to occupy any portion of the subject property which is his acquired property. (iii) I have also relied upon another judgment reported as 152(2008) DLT 691 titled as neetu Mittal Vs Kanta Mittal wherein it was held that The Matrimonial home is not defined in any of the statutory provisions. However, phrase Matrimorial home refers to the place which is dwelling house used by the parties, i.e. husband and wife or a place which was being used by husband and wife as the family residence. The son can live in the house of parents as a matter of right only if the house is an ancestral house in which the son has a share and he car enforce the partition. Where the house is self acquired house of the parents, son whether married or unmarried, has no legal right to live in that house and he can live in that house only at the mercy of his parents upto the time the parents allow. Merely because the parents have allowed him to live in the house so long as his relations with the parents were cordial, does not mean that the parents have to bear his burden through out the life.
(iv) I have also relied upon judgment reported as Shumita Didi Sandhu vs Sanjay Singh Sandhu & ors 174(2010) DLT 79 (DB) Wherein it was held that a property which neither belongs to husband nor is taken on rent by him, nor is a joint family property in which husband is a member, cannot be regarded as shared household and therefore, the daughter in law has no right to claim right to stay in such a property, which belongs to either the father in law or mother in law. 6. The plaintiff has filed the present suit claiming himself as the absolute owner of the suit property by virtue of the conveyance deed executed by the DDA dated 31.05.2001. The copy of the conveyance deed is also placed on record by the plaintiff. The copy of the conveyance deed and the submissions of the plaintiff shows that that plaintiff is an absolute owner of the suit property. The defendant on the other hand has not placed on record any documents to controvert the contentions of the plaintiff. The defendant has fails to bring on record any proof to show that the suit property is the ancestral property in which her husband has any rights, title to interest. In a self acquired house of the parents, the son whether married or unmarried has no legal right to reside as a matter of right, he can reside only on the wish or mercy of the parents upto the times the parents allow. The rights of daughter-in-law would dependant upon the rights of her husband. A son can reside in a house as a matter of right only if the same is ancestral house in which he has a share for which he can seek partition. The defendant has also not placed on record any proof that the suit premises was used by her as dwelling house. The suit premises was never used by the defendant or her house as dwelling house. Therefore, it also does not falls within the definition of matrimonial home. The matrimonial house is a place which was being used by the husband and the wife as family residence. Occassional visit or conduct of the marriage ceremony in the suit premises does not bring the suit premises within the definition of matrimonial home. 7. It is also not is dispute that the son of the plaintiff was residing in Denmark and after marriage, the defendant has also went to the Denmark to join him. It is also pertinent to mention that the factum of exclusive possession in the suit premises of the plaintiff is also not in dispute. The defendant moved an application under order 27 Rule 9 CPC which was dismissed as withdrawn on the statement of the plaintiff on being satisfied about the physical possession of the suit premises lying with the plaintiff.
8. The plaintiff is the rightful owner of the suit premises and he is in exclusive possession of the suit premises. The defendant has also fails to prove that the suit premises was shared household or matrimonial home. The possession of the suit premises of the plaintiff needs to be protected and the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss or injury if the possession of the plaintiff is breached by the defendant or any other person claiming through defendant. Accordingly, the application under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff is allowed. The defendant, her attorney, agents, relatives are restrained from forcibly entering or interfering into the peaceful possession of the suit premises i.e. A-300, Vikashpuri Delhi till the final disposal of the suit. (underlining added) 5. I completely agree with the aforesaid observations and conclusions of the trial court because law is now settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.R. Batra (supra) and which was followed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shumita Didi Sandhu (supra) that a house which is owned by the mother-in-law or father-in-law is not the matrimonial home and a daughter-in-law has no right to live in the same. In the present case besides the fact that the petitioner/defendant has not shown any right in the suit property existing in her favour or of her husband, and in any case since the title deeds of the property are in the name of the respondent/plaintiff, and admittedly the respondent/plaintiff is in possession and that petitioner/defendant hardly stayed in the suit property inasmuch as she had been living with her husband/sh. Rahul Vig, son of the respondent/plaintiff in Denmark or at her parents home, and not in the suit premises, clearly there was a prima facie case in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and who would have been caused grave/irreparable injury which cannot be compensated by moneys, and thus the injunction application had to be allowed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. 6. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the petition, and which is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. I note that the trial court has already noted that nothing contained in the impugned order will tantamount to expression on the merits of the case. SEPTEMBER 25, 2014 Sd/- VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J