The court emphasized the exclusive ownership of the property and the limitations of the daughter-in-law's rights under The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Jayant Nath, J.

1. The present Suit is filed for mandatory and permanent injunction. The plaintiff is stated to be an aged widow of 54 years suffering from various heart ailments. She is owner of property bearing No.D-32, South Extension, Part-II, New Delhi-110049. It is stated that she is residing in the said suit premises since her childhood. Her father executed a Will dated 12.07.1981 through which the suit property was given to the plaintiff. This Court on 12.1.1984 granted probate of the aforesaid Will and hence the plaintiff became exclusive owner of the suit property. It is further stated in the plaint that defendant no.2 is the only son of the plaintiff. Defendant no.2 got married to defendant no.1 on 27.4.2009. Various allegations are made against defendant no.1. It is stated that on account of differences there was constant friction between the plaintiff and defendant no.1. Plaintiff requested the defendants to move out of the house. It is stated that in January, 2010 defendants moved out of the house and started living somewhere else. But immediately thereafter defendant no.1 forcibly entered into the house and started living there. Based on these facts, a decree of mandatory injunction is sought against defendant no.1 to vacate the suit property and a decree of permanent injunction is sought against defendant no.1 or assignees etc. from entering into the suit property.

2. Defendant no.2 has filed his written statement. Defendant no.2 in his written statement has supported the allegations of the plaintiff against defendant no.1. He has further stated that defendant no.2 in January 2010 moved to a rented accommodation in Defence Colony and on 9.4.2010 moved to another rented accommodation C-528, Second Floor, Defence Colony.

3. Defendant no.1 in the written statement has stated that the present suit is nothing but a cleverly designed legal proceeding to circumvent and get over the statutory rigour of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ The Domestic Violence Act’) It is stated that the suit property is a shared household under Section 2 read with section 17 of the said Act. It is also stated that the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the property in question. It is further stated that the father of the plaintiff was not the single surviving male member of the HUF. He was a member of the HUF with his wife, daughter and defendant no.2. Based on these averments, it is stated that the present Suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. On 12.3.2013 the matter came up before this Court for framing of issues. This Court rejected the contention of defendant no.2 that the subject property belongs to HUF. It was held that the property has been inherited by the plaintiff the mother in a Will of her father. Plaintiff was the only child of her father. It is further held that defendant no.2 cannot become a member of the HUF of his maternal grandfather inasmuch as conception of HUF under the ancient Hindu Law is patrilineal and not matrilineal. Relevant portion of the said order is reproduced as under:-

“15. The question which arises is whether an issue needs to be framed on the title of the plaintiff to the property;

16. Issues are to be framed only on material propositions of law and fact which require adjudication and not on pleas though contained in the pleadings which are contrary to the settled principles of law and/or which have no legal basis to stand on. It cannot be lost sight of that framing of unnecessary issue invites unnecessary evidence and arguments and which protracts the disposal of the suits.

17. The plea of the defendant no.2 of the subject property belonging to the HUF is misconceived. The plaintiff is the mother (and not the father) of the defendant no.2. The property has been inherited by the plaintiff under a Will of her father. Though the said Will is probated (which is a judgment in rem) but even if the Wil