Continuous proclamation of ownership over a property for a period of 12 years can lead to acquisition of ownership rights by law of prescription, and a daughter-in-law has no legal right to reside in the property of her mother-in-law if it is not a matrimonial home.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J

1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is to the impugned judgment of the Trial court dated 1.11.2011. By the impugned judgment, suit of the respondent/plaintiff/mother-in-law against the appellant/defendant/daughter-in-law for mandatory injunction to remove herself from the suit property has been decreed. The suit property is the property bearing no.887, Vikas Kunj, Vikas Puri, New Delhi.

2. The respondent/plaintiff as per the plaint pleaded that she is an aged lady of more than 78 years and that the appellant/defendant was making her life miserable by hurling abuses at her, ill-treating her etc. It is also pleaded that the respondent/plaintiff was forced to even file police complaints against the appellant/defendant. The respondent/plaintiff claimed that her son Sh. Rajiv Sharda was not living in the suit property and was living separately. It was further pleaded that the respondent/plaintiff being the owner of the suit property was not interested in view of the conduct of the appellant/defendant to let her continue to reside in the suit premises and therefore legal notices dated 3.12.2008 and 23.12.2008 were served which failed to yield any result resulting in filing of the subject suit. It is pleaded that though the son of the respondent/plaintiff shifted to another house being M-9, Vikas Puri, New Delhi, however, the appellant/defendant continued to reside in the suit premises.

3. The appellant/defendant contested the suit and pleaded that the suit has been filed in connivance with the son of the respondent/plaintiff because there was pressure upon the appellant/defendant to sign the divorce papers. In the written statement filed by the appellant/defendant, it was also pleaded that the respondent/plaintiff was not the owner of the suit property as there were no conveyance deed in her favour by the DDA. The appellant/defendant also claimed a right to live in the suit premises, inasmuch as, she was a daughter-in-law of the respondent/plaintiff and therefore had a right under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

4. The Trial Court after the pleadings were completed, framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiff has locus standi to file the present suit being owner of the suit property? OPP 2. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? OPD 3. Whether the valuation of the suit for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction is proper? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of mandatory injunction as prayed? OPP 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any damages, if so, at what rate and for which period? OPP 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any interest on the damages, if yes, at what rate? OPP 8. Relief.”

5. The Trial Court has held the respondent/plaintiff to be the owner of the suit property on the basis of the Will, Ex.PW1/1 dated 11.1.1988 executed in her favour by the erstwhile owner Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma, and whose death certificate was proved as Ex.PW1/3 (date of death of Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma was 4.2.1988). It was held by the Trial Court relying upon Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Shumita Didi Sandhu vs. Sanjay Singh Sandhu & Ors., 2007 (96) DRJ 697 that once the husband is alive, neither the father-in-law nor the mother-in-law has any duty to maintain the daughter-in-law, and the daughter-in-law has no right to reside in the property of her in-laws which is not a matrimonial home, nor a “shared household” under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

6. I am bound by Division Bench’s judgment of this Court in the case of Shumita Didi (supra), and therefore, it is rightly held by the Trial Court that once the respondent/plaintiff is the owner of the property, and the suit premises is not a matrimonial home inasmuch as the husband