Point of Law : Right of residence under Section 19 of DV Act is not an indefeasible right of residence in shared household, especially, when the daughter-in-law is pitted against aged father-in-law and mother-in-law.

JUDGMENT

Yogesh Khanna, J. - This appeal is filed for setting aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 10.07.2018 passed in Civil Suit ^0.613347/2016 by Additional District Judge-04 (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred as the learned Trial Court). Before coming to the impugned judgment let us see the facts of the case.

2. The respondent herein claims to be an absolute and sole owner of the property bearing No.E-7, Second Floor, Front Side, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-27 vide a registered sale deed 27.09.2004. He filed a suit for eviction against the defendant viz. his daughter-in-law. A decree of possession with damages equivalent to the market rent of the alleged illegal possession was passed against the appellant and also a decree of permanent injunction to restrain her from creating any third party right in such property.

3. It is submitted after the marriage of the son of respondent with appellant in the year 2003 both were residing together with the respondent, firstly in property No.D-1041, First Floor, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-65 and thereafter they shifted to the suit property when it was purchased in the year 2004.

4. It is the case of the appellant she being a legally wedded wife of respondent's son has been residing with her two minor daughters in one room with an attached bathroom and a balcony in the suit property, marked in the site plan.

5. The appellant in her written statement has alleged earlier she was residing with her husband at House No.D-1041, First Floor, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-65 which was purchased by S. Kesar Singh, the late father of respondent and the grandfather of appellant's husband. The said land was allotted to New Friends Colony Co-operative House Building Society vide lease deed dated 13.11.1963 of which S. Kesar Singh was a member. S. Kesar Singh then purchased the said property out of the joint family funds and paid sale proceeds from such funds, which he had collected from disposal of ancestral properties. After the death of S. Kesar Singh, the respondent and his siblings inherited the New Friends Colony property and other family businesses of his late father. In the year 2004 the respondent sold his share in the aforesaid property and out of such sale proceeds he purchased the subject property.

6. The respondent filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the written statement to implead the facts qua S.Kesar Singh, HUF saying S.Kesar Singh, the Karta of S. Kesar Singh and Sons (HUF) died in the year 1977 but her husband was born in the year 1976 and hence he became a coparcener of the said HUF created by his grandfather. The said application was, however, dismissed by the learned Trial Court. Admittedly no appeal was filed against such order.

7. Thus the main plea of the appellant was S. Kesar Singh had purchased the New Friends Colony property out of joint family funds and from sale proceeds of the ancestral property and after the death of S. Kesar Singh the subject property was purchased by the respondent from such ancestral funds, hence the suit property is a joint family property in which the appellant has also a right to reside.

8. After hearing the parties the impugned order was passed whereby a decree of possession was awarded to the respondent. It was held the property was a self-acquired property of the respondent and the appellant was residing in the property as his daughter-in-law and after termination of the license, she has no right to stay therein, thus the impugned order.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant, primarily, relied upon Satish Chander Ahuja vs. Sneha Ahuja AIR 2020 SC 5397 wherein the following questions were raised:

"(1) Whether definition of shared household under Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has to be read to mean that shared household can only be that household which is household of joint family or in which husband of the aggrieved person has a share?

(2) Whether