Important Point – Daughter – in – law has no right to immovable property belonging to parents – in – law.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. These two Regular Second Appeals have been filed by the father-in-law Sh. Kuljeet Singh impugning the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the trial court dated 13.12.2013 and the first appellate court dated 18.11.2014; by which the courts below have dismissed the suit for possession filed by the appellant and decreed the suit filed by the respondent no.1 for injunction against being dispossessed from the suit property. The suit property is a three bedroom DDA flat bearing no. 107, SFS Phase-IV, Ashok Vihar, Delhi-52. The two suits which were filed, one by the appellant and second by the respondent no.1, were consolidated before the trial court. The suit of the appellant filed was a suit for possession of the suit property as against the respondent no.1/daughter-in-law/Smt. Jaspal Kaur whereby the appellant pleaded that the daughter-in-law was harassing the aged parents-in-law and that the son of the appellant was no longer living with the parents-in-law, and therefore, the respondent no.1 who is occupying one bedroom along with the other related portion of the suit property be asked to handover possession of the same to the appellant. Mesne profits were also prayed for being granted. Respondent no.2 is the husband of the respondent no.1 and the son of the appellant. The second suit was the suit filed by the daughter-in-law/respondent no.1/Smt. Jaspal Kaur seeking the relief that she should not be dispossessed from the suit property as it is her matrimonial home and where she is living with her two children. Respondent no.1 denied ownership of the appellant and pleaded that actually her husband/respondent no.2 being the son of the appellant was the owner of the suit property. Respondent no.1 thus prayed for injunction against being dispossessed from the suit property. It may be noted that the two children of the respondent no.1, wife of the respondent no.2 and the daughter-in-law of the appellant, are one son and one daughter. One son has already attained majority and is pursuing his MBBS course. The second child being the daughter is soon to achieve the age of majority and has now to take up studies in college. The children of the respondents are however not parties to the suit.

2. Two main issues arose in the two suits which were filed by the appellant and the respondent no.1. The first main issue was as to whether the appellant was or was not the owner of the suit property and the second issue was as to whether the suit property was the matrimonial home of the respondent no.1/Smt. Jaspal Kaur/daughter-in-law although the respondent no.2 is not living with the parents-in-law in the suit property and with the fact that it was not the respondent no.2/husband but it was the appellant who was the owner of the suit property.

3. Both the courts below have given a finding that the appellant is not the owner because appellant has not filed any documents of title of the suit property inasmuch as he has only filed and proved one possession slip (Ex. PW1/2) issued by DDA in favour of the appellant with respect to the suit property. The courts below have also held that the respondent no.1 has made various structural changes in the property as well as paying the electricity bills, water bills, house tax bills etc, and therefore, respondent no.1 has an irrevocable licence to stay in the suit property. The courts below have also held that the suit has been filed by the appellant in collusion with his son being the respondent no.2 herein.

4. For disposal of these regular second appeals, the following substantial questions of law are framed:-

(i) Whether the courts below have not committed a complete illegality and perversity in requiring that the appellant should prove himself as an owner in terms of a title deed whereas all that was required to show was a better claim of ownership and possession of the appellant as compared to the respondent no.1 (and even respondent no.2) with respect to the suit prope