High Court of Delhi
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
Raj Kumari
Versus
Preeti Satija & Another
I.A. No.500 of 2011 in CS(OS) No.85 of 2010
Decided on : 13-01-2012
Probate - Property Ownership - Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - [Probate, Property Ownership, Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act, 2005] - The court discussed the requirement of probate for a will to come into force, the ownership of the suit property, and the rights of a daughter-in-law under the Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The court emphasized that probate is not mandatory in Delhi and that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. It held that the daughter-in-law has no right to reside in the suit property as it exclusively belongs to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff has no legal duty to maintain the daughter-in-law under the Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction, possession, permanent injunction, and mesne profits against the defendants in respect of a property. The defendant No.1, daughter-in-law of the plaintiff, claimed that the plaintiff is not the absolute owner of the property and that the Will is yet to be probated.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and that the daughter-in-law has no right to reside in the property. It decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff for possession and permanent injunction against the defendants.
Issues: Ownership of the suit property, requirement of probate for the Will, rights of daughter-in-law under the Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that probate is not mandatory in Delhi and that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. It emphasized that the daughter-in-law has no right to reside in the suit property as it exclusively belongs to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff has no legal duty to maintain the daughter-in-law under the Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Final Decision: The suit of the plaintiff is decreed in terms of possession and permanent injunction against the defendants. The defendants are granted one month's time to hand over the peaceful possession of the occupied portion of the suit property.
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
1. By this order I shall dispose of the present application filed by the plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 of CPC stating that the defendant No.1 has made admission of facts in her written statement.
2. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for eviction/ possession, permanent injunction and mesne profits against the defendants in respect of portion of property bearing No.2245, Hudson Lane, GTB Nagar, Kingsway Camp, Delhi – 110 009 (hereinafter referred to as the suit property).
3. The defendant No.1 is the daughter-in-law of the plaintiff and wife of her disowned son, who is defendant No.2 herein. The suit property originally belonged the husband of the plaintiff namely Shri Tek Chand, who passed away on 30.06.2008 leaving behind a registered Will dated 20.11.2006 whereby, he bequeathed the entire suit property to the plaintiff who alleged that after her husbands’ death, she became the sole and absolute owner of the suit property. It is stated by the plaintiff that the back portion of the suit property comprising one bedroom, one bathroom and a small kitchen is in occupation of the defendants but as the relations between the plaintiff and the defendants have become estranged, therefore the plaintiff has filed the present suit for eviction.
4. By way of this application the plaintiff is seeking a decree of possession against the defendant No.1 herein, in respect of the back portion of the suit property.
5. In the reply on behalf of defendant No.1 to the present application, it is stated that the plaintiff is not the absolute owner of the suit property and the Will is yet to be probated and to be tested before the court of law and that without probation, the Will cannot come into force.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties in the above mentioned application. It is not in dispute that originally, the suit property belonged to the husband of the plaintiff Sh. Tek Chand, who passed away on 30.06.2008 leaving behind a registered Will dated 20.11.206 whereby he bequeathed the entire property in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, in support of her contention, has filed conveyance deed dated 21.11.2002 pertaining to the registration of property bearing No.2245, Hudson Lane, GTB Nagar, Kingsway Camp, Delhi – 110 009 and also filed copy of the registered Will dated 20.11.2006.
7. In her written statement, the defendant No.1 has not disputed the existence of the registered Will dated 20.11.2006 executed by the plaintiffs’ late husband and her only objection in the written statement is that the said Will dated 20.11.2006 is not probated. It is settled law that the probate of the Will is not mandatory in Delhi. Incase, titles of the suit property are clear about the ownership of the immovable property, then the party concerned is entitled to claim ownership of the suit property. The defendant No.1s’ only defence to the present suit remains that the suit property is her matrimonial home. The said defense has also been dealt with in various decisions of the Apex Court wherein it has been held that a woman has no right of residence in the property of her in-laws under the provisions of Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
8. The plaintiff has also filed the copy of the notice dated 24.09.2009 issued to her son Sh. Sanjay Satija wherein it was specifically mentioned that the defendants were not having healthy relations with the plaintiff and both did not care about the plaintiff and due to the same, the plaintiff had disowned her son as well as his wife and also issued a public notice dated 19.09.2009 in this regard which was published in Rastriya Sahara. Request was also made to vacate her house and hand over the vacant possession. However, the possession was not handed over. Therefore, the plaintiff issued another notice dated 19.12.2009 in this regard to her son as well as daughter-in-law for vacation of the suit property. After the said notice,
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.