The main legal point established in the judgment is the burden of proof in establishing joint family property and the application of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,2005 in property disputes.

P.K.BHASIN, J:

The present appeal is filed by an unsuccessful defendant in a suit

for possession and mesne profits filed by the two respondents herein in respect of House no. 220, Pocket-7, Block-C, Sector-8, Rohini, Delhi-(hereinafter refe for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 27th March 2008 passed by the Additional District Judge whereby she has been directed to vacate the first floor of the suit property and also to pay mesne profits @ Rs.3250/- p.m.

2. The relevant facts as culled out from the pleadings and evidence of the parties, documents on record, as well as the submissions made before this Court by the counsel for the parties, may first be noticed. The elder son of the respondents, who shall hereinafter be referred to got married to the appellant on th July 1995. The marriage was brought to the house of Gambhirs in Rohini where at that time the plaintiffs and their two unmarried sons were already living as a joint family. As per the case of the plaintiffs from the day the defendant got married to their son Anil Gambhir they started living in one room set on the first floor portion and they themselves were occupying the one room set on the ground floor while their younger son after his marriage living in the one room which was there on the second floor with his wife. After some years of their marriage the relations between the defendant and her in-laws including her husband started getting strained and became so bad that the plaintiffs who were living on the ground floor and their younger son and his wife who had been occupying the second floor had to shift to Gurgaon. that house and started living separately in some house in NOIDA leaving behind his wife and two children in the Rohini house. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant had no legal right to stay in the suit property which was their exclusive property having been acquired from DDA by plaintiff no.1, Hari Chand Gambhir from his own funds and constructed also from his own money and the loan taken by him from his employer and that it was only out of love for his wife that he had got her name also included in the perpetual lease deed executed by DDA. It was further pleaded that the defendant in their absence took possession of the ground floor and second floors also, taking advantage of their having shifted to Gurgaon. Since the plaintiffs did not want their daughter-in-law to stay any more in their house they served a notice dated 27/10/04 upon the defendant to vacate the suit property by 30/11/04 but she did not do that. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiffs on 11/01/05 against the defendant for getting back the possession of the suit property from her. Since her occupation of the entire suit property was claimed to be unauthorised after she had failed to surrender the possession, the plaintiffs also claimed mesne profits @ Rs.15,000/-

p.m. The plaint was valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction at Rs.12 lacs being the value of the suit property.

.3. The suit was contested by the defendant. She claimed that the suit had been filed by her in-laws to force her and their own grandchildren to live the life as destitutes and roofless. Regarding the claim of the plaintiffs that they were the exclusive owners of the suit property her stand was that the suit property belonged to an Hindu Undivided Family(HUF) and her husband being one of the members

.of that HUF, she and her children had a right to reside in the property in their occupation. That property in any case was alleged to be her matrimonial home also and for that reason as well she could not be asked to move out from there or to pay any money for residing there. She denied the allegation that she had unauthorisedly occupied the ground and second floors also. She claimed that the ground floor had been locked by the plaintiffs themselves and as far as second floor is concerned she stated that since entry to that floor was through the first floor portion, she