S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. The defendant appeals the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge, who decreed the suit preferred by the respondent- plaintiff, her mother in law, on admission, by invoking Order XII Rule 6, Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The plaintiff had sought a decree for possession/eviction of the defendant/daughter-in-law.

2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for possession, permanent injunction and mesne profits against the defendants, her son and mother in-law, in respect of a portion of property bearing No.2245, Hudson Lane, GTB Nagar, Kingsway Camp, Delhi – 110 009 (hereafter referred to as “the suit property”). The first defendant is the plaintiff’s daughter-in-law and wife of her disowned son. The son was also arrayed as the second defendant. The suit property belonged to the plaintiff’s husband (Shri Tek Chand), who he died on 30.06.2008 leaving behind a registered Will dated 20.11.2006 by which he bequeathed the suit property to her. The plaintiff alleged that after her husband’s death, she became the sole and absolute owner of that property. The plaintiff claimed that the back portion of the suit property consisting of one bedroom, a bathroom and a small kitchen is in occupation of the defendants. She alleged that since the relationship between her and the defendants became estranged, she wanted them to vacate the property. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application alleging her entitlement to a decree on alleged admission.

3. The appellant’s position in her reply to the application for decree on admission was that the plaintiff was not the absolute owner of the suit property as the Will had not been granted probate and was as yet untested in law and that without it being probated, the Will cannot come into force.

4. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that since the defendant/appellant had not disputed the due execution of the Will, and had merely contested that it had no legal effect because it had not been probated, there was in effect an admission. Further, he concluded that it is inessential to seek a probate, and thus, the Will, being admitted, remains operative between the parties. The impugned order also mentioned the two notices issued on behalf of the plaintiff to the defendants and her allegation that they were harassing her and continuing to live in the suit premises. The Court also noticed that the appellant had filed a suit, before the Civil Judge, North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi (Suit No.16/2010) which is still pending. Importantly, the Single Judge was also aware of the fact that the appellant had relied on provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereafter “2005 Act”).

5. In the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge rejected the arguments of the appellant with respect to applicability of the provisions of the 2005 Act. It was held that the suit property could not be considered to be “shared household”. In view of this conclusion, the Single Judge decreed the suit in part, holding that the defendant was liable to be evicted.

6. The appellant argued that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that there was no unambiguous admission of the kind that warranted exercise of discretion under Order 12, Rule 6. In this regard, it was contended that the written statement had alleged collusion between the plaintiff and her son, the second defendant; it had not admitted due execution of the Will and stated that such circumstances would have to be tested in probate proceedings. In these circumstances, the court should have not exercised its discretion in granting a decree on admission. It was further argued that the Single Judge fell into error in relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in S.R. Batra &Anr v. Smt. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC169 and the ruling of this Court in Shumita Didi Sandhu v. Sanjay Singh Sandhu, 2007 (96) DRJ 697. It was contended that those decisions overlooked the crucial definition of “sha