The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing clear title documents in property ownership disputes and clarifies the definition of a 'shared household' under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

JUDGMENT :

Anu Malhotra, J.

The respondent no.1 was present as the caveator. The appellant and the respondent no.1 have both been heard.

2. The appellant vide the present Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (as amended) seeks the setting aside of the order dated 22.01.2019 of the learned ADJ-02, (East District), KKD Courts, Delhi in Regular Civil Appeal No.70/2018, whereby the said Regular Civil Appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated 24.04.2018 of the learned Trial Court in Suit No.88/2017 filed by the respondent no.1 herein as the plaintiff of that suit,- was dismissed except with regard to directions of the payment of mesne profits by the appellant herein and the respondent no.2 i.e. the husband of the appellant herein who is the son of the respondent no.1 i.e. the plaintiff of Suit No.88/2017.

3. Vide the judgment dated 24.04.2018 in Suit No.88/2017, the learned Civil Judge-East, KKD Courts, Delhi in a suit filed by the plaintiff thereof arrayed as the respondent no.1 to the present Regular Second Appeal who is the father-in-law of the appellant herein and the father of the respondent no.2 herein, in a suit filed by the father-in-law i.e. the respondent no.1 herein against the defendants i.e. his son who is the respondent no.2 herein and his daughter-in-law i.e. the appellant herein seeking a mandatory and permanent injunction with mesne profits and damages was decreed as under:-

"36. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the-Plaintiff is granted the following reliefs:

36.1 Defendants are directed to remove themselves and their Belongings by vacating and handing over a peaceful and vacant possession of the second floor of the suit property i.e. J- 1/C, Laxmi Nagar, Near Jagat Ram Park, Delhi-110092 as shown in red colour in the site plan within two months from the date of this order.

36.2 Defendants are permanently injuncted from creating any third party interest in the suit property i.e. J-l/C, Second Floor, Laxmi Nagar, Near Jagat Ram Park, Delhi--110092 in any manner till handing over the same to the. Plaintiff or thereafter.

36.3 Defendant no.l is ordered to pay user charges w.e.f. 10.07.2013 at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month till vacation of the suit premises.

36.4 Defendants are jointly and severally ordered to pay user charges 31.01.17 at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month till vacation of the suit premises.

37. Keeping in mind the relationship of the parties, no order as to costs. Let a decree sheet be prepared in the aforesaid terms. Site plan shall form part of the decree. All pending applications, if any, are disposed off as not pressed. File, be consigned to record room after necessary compliance."

4. The learned Civil Judge-East, KKD Courts Delhi vide the judgment dated 24.04.2018 held that the plaintiff of the suit i.e. the respondent no.1 herein in view of the GPA Sale transaction through documents i.e. GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Will and receipt etc. in relation to the property J-1/C, Laxmi Nagar, Near Jagat Ram Park, Delhi-110092 though, he did not become an absolute owner as in the case of a sale deed transaction and did not have a perfect title of property in his favour, nevertheless he had a better title over the suit property in comparison of the defendants of that suit i.e. his son and his daughter-in-law who are arrayed as the respondent no.2 and the appellant respectively to the present petition, who had no valid claim of ownership over the suit property at all.

5. The learned Civil Judge-East, KKD Courts, Delhi also held that the license granted by the respondent no.1 herein i.e. the father-in-law/plaintiff of the suit to his son and his daughter-in-law to live in the premises belonging to him i.e. J-1/C, Laxmi Nagar, Near Jagat Ram Park, Delhi-110092 constructed upto the 4th Floor on which the appellant herein and her husband i.e. the son of the respondent no.1 herein were residing on the 2nd Floor of the suit property after the marria