Daughter-in-law and grandson have no legal right to reside in the self-acquired property of the respondent/plaintiff, especially when they are financially independent and the respondent/plaintiff has no liability to make arrangements for their residence.

1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 read with Order XLII Rule 2 and Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is preferred against the concurrent judgment of the Courts below i.e. of the First Appellate Court dated August 22, 2016 in RCA No. 6/2016 and of the Trial Court dated March 01, 2016 in Civil Suit No. 4784/2015 (Old No. 254/2013), by which the suit of the respondent/plaintiff has been decreed and the appellants were directed to deliver the peaceful vacant possession of the suit property within one month to the respondent/plaintiff.

2. The brief facts are that the respondent/plaintiff Lakhpat Rai filed a civil suit seeking the decree of declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction against his daughter-in-law Jotsna, appellant No.1/defendant No.1 and grandson Rohit, appellant No.2/defendant No.2, pleading that he is a retired Government servant with date of birth as March 08, 1932 and living along with the aged wife in his self-acquired property i.e. DDA Flat No. No.C-12/26, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi. His son Vishwa Bandhu Sharma was born on February 06, 1960 and got married to the appellant No.1 on April 20, 1987. At that time they were residing in a Government accommodation at Flat No. 1922, Lodhi Complex, New Delhi. On his superannuation the Government accommodation was vacated and he shifted to the suit property after raising construction thereon. It is further pleaded that the appellants were staying at House No. 1142, Madipur w.e.f. 1992 to 2001. In the year 2001 the appellants/defendants requested him to provide shelter to them with the assurance that they would live peacefully. Out of love and affection he provided one room to the appellants for a short period. Both the appellants/defendants are employed and appellant/defendant No.2 has been allotted 3BHK accommodation. Both the appellants/defendants have been harassing the old couple for a long time by abusing and torturing them. Even proceedings under Section 107/150 Cr.PC vide DD No.35-B, dated August 19, 2003, PS Bhajanpura were initiated against him at the behest of the appellants/defendants. Even a case under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, vide D.V. No. 700/2012 has been filed against him to humiliate and harass him and his wife. Due to old age he is suffering from various ailments. Appellant No.1 has threatened him to falsely implicate him by pouring kerosene oil on her. This was reported by him to the DCP, North-East Distt., Welcome, Seelampur, Delhi by making complaint dated December 12, 2012. Being not able to bear this humiliation, harassment and torture, he disowned them and also served them with legal notice dated October 03, 2012 sent by speed post. The notice was replied on November 16, 2012 but since they failed to vacate the room provided to them temporarily, he was constrained to take recourse to law.

3. In the written statement, the appellants/defendants claimed their right to live in the suit property as co-owners pleading that it was purchased out of sale proceeds of the ancestral property at Abhore, Punjab and also from the sale proceeds of a Janta flat in Vikas Puri, New Delhi which was in the name of Vishwa Bandhu Sharma, son of the plaintiff.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:

1. “Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of declaration as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP

4. Whether the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff out of the sale proceeds of his ancestral property at Abhore, Punjab? OPD

5. Whether the husband of the defendant no.1 has also contributed towards the consideration for the purchase of the suit property? OPD”

5. All the issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff. In respect of the finding on issue Nos.4 & 5, learned Trial Court held that no evidence was led to substantiate this plea by t