Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Suman Sharma vs Smt Preeti Sharma on 12 September, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21833
1 CR-387-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 12th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
CIVIL REVISION No. 387 of 2023
SMT SUMAN SHARMA
Versus
SMT PREETI SHARMA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nirmal Sharma, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri R.K. Soni, Advocate for respondents.
ORDER
This civil revision, under section 115 of CPC, has been filed against
the order dated 9/5/2023 passed by V Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gwalior
in RCS No.999A/2022, by which an application filed by the applicant under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been rejected.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of present revision, in short, are
that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the daughters-in-laws (Bahu) of the
applicant. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed a suit for declaration of title
and permanent injunction, pleading inter alia that both of them are real
sisters. Plaintiff No.1 is married to defendant No.3 Bhagwat Sharma, and
plaintiff No.2 is married to defendant No.4 Shravan Sharma. Both the
plaintiffs are not liked by their mother-in-law and father-in-law, i.e.,
defendant Nos.1 and 2, and in fact they hate the plaintiffs. Even the
defendant Nos.3 and 4, who are the husbands of plaintiffs, are under the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21833
2 CR-387-2023
pressure of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and are constantly harassing the plaintiffs.
They neither allow the plaintiffs to go to their parental home nor they allow
the plaintiffs to attend any community function and all the defendants, in
connivance with each other, are trying to dispossess the plaintiffs from their
matrimonial house. Because of the taunts passed by defendant Nos.1 and 2,
the life of the plaintiffs has become miserable and the defendants are
behaving cruelly with them. The plaintiffs are in legal possession of the
property in dispute as it is their matrimonial house, whereas defendants are
trying to dispossess and oust them by hook or by crook. It is further
submitted that defendant No.1, on false allegations, had filed civil suit
number 374A of 2022 before the Court of X Civil Judge Class II, Gwalior,
and the defendants, in connivance with each other, got the civil suit disposed
of by order dated 13/8/2022 passed in the Lok Adalat. The said compromise
was arrived at without the knowledge and information of the plaintiffs. Thus,
the plaintiffs have an apprehension that they may be ousted from their
matrimonial house along with their belongings. It was also pleaded that the
defendants are out and out to alienate the suit property. Thus, the suit was
filed for a declaration that the plaintiffs, being the coparceners of the joint
Hindu family property of their in-laws and are in legal possession of the
property in dispute and the defendants have no right to dispossess them
without following due procedure of law. Permanent injunction was also
sought to the effect that the defendants be restrained from interfering with
the peaceful enjoyment of the property either by themselves or through their
agents.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21833
3 CR-387-2023
3. Applicant No.1 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC,
pleading inter alia that the daughter-in-laws, during the lifetime of their
husbands, cannot claim themselves to be coparceners of the properties of
their in-laws. Therefore, the suit as framed and filed is not maintainable. The
counsel for the applicant also relied upon the judgment passed by this Court
in the case of Premlata and others Vs. Ramkishore and others, decided on
14/3/2023 in Second Appeal No. 333 of 2019 .
4. Per contra, the said revision is vehemently opposed by counsel for
the respondents.
5. This Court has already reproduced the prayer made by the plaintiffs
in the plaint, wherein they have claimed two reliefs: (i) that being
coparceners of the property of their in-laws, they are in legal possession, and
are entitled to its peaceful enjoyment and; (ii) that they should not be
dispossessed without following due procedure of law.
6. It is true that a daughter-in-law, during the lifetime of her husband,
cannot be treated as a coparcener in the property of her in-laws, because the
Hindu Succession Act speaks about succession by the son and daughter and
not by their spouses. But there is another aspect of the matter which cannot
be lost sight of. The Supreme Court in the case of Kum. Geetha vs.
Nanjundaswamy and Ors., decided on 31.10.2023 in Civil Appeal No.
7413/2023 and Sri Boyenepally Srijayavardhan Vs. V. Nirupama Reddy &
Others decided on 29/7/2025 in SLP (C) No.5732/2025 has held that out of
multiple reliefs claimed by the plaintiff, even if one relief is maintainable,
then the plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. In other
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21833
4 CR-387-2023
words, the plaint cannot be rejected in part; either it should be rejected as a
whole, or it should proceed as a whole.
7. The plaintiffs are the legally wedded wives of defendant Nos.3 and
4, and thus they have a right to reside in their matrimonial house. Therefore,
their right to live in the matrimonial house is a recognized legal right. Even
otherwise, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
they are entitled to reside in a shared household.
8. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that all the reliefs
claimed by the plaintiffs are barred under law. Since the suit cannot be
dismissed in part, therefore, in spite of the fact that the plaintiffs cannot be
treated as coparceners in the property of their in-laws during the lifetime of
their husbands, still, in view of the pleading that they are entitled to enjoy
their matrimonial house peacefully, the suit is maintainable.
9. Accordingly, no case is made out warranting interference. The
order dated 9/5/2023 passed by V Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gwalior in
RCS No.999A/2022, is hereby affirmed.
10. The revision fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
(and)
