Delhi High Court
Sunita vs Ramphal on 19 April, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RSA No. 116/2017 & CM No.14694/2017 (exemption)
and 14695/2017 (stay)
% 19th April, 2017
SUNITA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. R.P.S. Bhatti, Advocate.
versus
RAMPHAL ..... Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the
appellant/defendant no.1/daughter-in-law impugning the concurrent
judgments of the courts below; of the Trial Court dated 3.9.2014 and
the First Appellate Court dated 25.2.2017; by which the suit filed by
the respondent/plaintiff/father-in-law for mandatory injunction to
handover vacant physical possession of the suit property has been
decreed. The suit property/premises is two rooms, kitchen, toilet and
bathroom on the ground floor on the property bearing no. A-425,
Ground Floor, 25 ft. road, Gali No.1, Meet Nagar, Delhi-110093
2. The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff is the
owner of the suit property and he has proved ownership of the same by
means of the documents executed in his favour being the General
Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Receipt, Will etc and which
were proved before the Trial Court as Ex.PW1/B (colly).
Respondent/plaintiff/father-in-law pleaded that appellant/defendant
no.1 is not having good relations with the respondent/plaintiff and the
appellant/defendant no.1 has misbehaved with the respondent/plaintiff
and even threatened to kill him. It is pleaded by the
respondent/plaintiff that appellant/defendant no.1 is a lady of criminal
nature who wants to illegally grab the suit property.
3. Before the trial court the appellant/defendant no.1
remained ex-parte. A written statement was only filed by the
defendant no.2, the son of the respondent/plaintiff and husband of the
appellant/defendant no.1, and who has not even been impleaded in this
appeal. Defendant no.2 did not dispute the ownership of the suit
property of the respondent/plaintiff/father, and which in any case was
otherwise duly proved in terms of the documents Ex.PW1/B (colly).
4. Therefore, it is seen that on the one hand the
respondent/plaintiff proved his case, and therefore, was entitled to the
reliefs prayed, the appellant/defendant no.1 remained ex-parte and no
evidence has been led in the courts below on behalf of the
appellant/defendant no.1 with respect to her legal entitlement to stay in
the suit property.
5. Law in this regard is well established in view of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.R. Batra and Another
Vs. Taruna Batra (Smt.) (2007) 3 SCC 169 that a daughter-in-law has
no right in the property of the father-in-law.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant no.1 argues
that the defendant no.2/son was gifted the suit property by the
respondent/plaintiff, and which is said to be admitted by the
respondent/plaintiff as per his pleadings, however, it is noted that this
argument is without substance because admittedly not only the gift
deed was not filed, but also that the gift deed admittedly has not been
registered, and once the gift deed is not registered, the same does not
pass any title of the suit property from the respondent/plaintiff to the
defendant no.2/son.
7. In view of the above discussion, no substantial question of
law arises for this appeal to be entertained under Section 100 CPC.
Dismissed.
8. In view of the facts of the present case, however the
appellant/defendant no.1 is granted time till 31.12.2017 to vacate the
suit premises subject to the appellant filing the usual undertaking in
this Court within a period of two weeks to vacate the suit premises on
or before 31.12.2017.
APRIL 19, 2017/ib VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
