The court affirmed that joint possession rights require cooperation among parties, and legal ownership secured through a relinquishment deed prevails against claims of occupancy by estranged family members.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure - Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 - Possession and injunction - Court affirmed the order allowing the respondent to enter suit property, rejecting the appellant's obstruction, as the respondent is the owner per a relinquishment deed - Joint possession acknowledged. (Paras 21, 23)

(B) Legal ownership - Respondent deemed absolute owner of property via relinquishment; daughters and son relinquished claims. (Paras 4, 16)

(C) Appeal findings - No legal impediment to respondent's entry into property as jointly occupied and no credible claim of ouster by appellant presented. (Paras 15, 20)

Facts of the case:
The respondent sought possession and injunction against the appellant, her daughter-in-law, who claimed illegal occupancy of two rooms; issues arose post-matrimonial disputes leading to separation. The husband of respondent had acquired property, and she became the sole owner after children relinquished their rights.

Findings of Court:
The respondent holds legal ownership and cannot be obstructed by the appellant from entering the property, which is meant for joint family living.

Issues: Clarification of property rights, legal ownership and possession, and whether any party can prevent joint access.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that ownership rights vested in the respondent are enforceable against the appellant, who had not sufficiently claimed exclusive rights or ouster since both parties have joint rights in the property.

Result: Appeal dismissed; appellant directed not to obstruct respondent's access to suit property, with specific conditions regarding third-party rights.

Table of Content
1. facts of the case including ownership and occupancy (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. appellant's denial of allegations (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
3. court's observations on possession and rights (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. court's decision on legal impediments and rights (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
5. dismissal of the contempt petition (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. Appellant impugns order dated 22.01.2021 whereby the application filed by the respondent under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 Code of Civil Procedure has been allowed and it has been directed that defendant/appellant shall not obstruct the respondent from entering the suit property i.e. 159 Pochanpur Village, Sector 23 Dwarka, New Delhi.

2. Appellant is the daughter-in-law and respondent is the mother-in-law.

3. Respondent had filed the subject suit inter-alia for possession, permanent and mandatory injunction seeking vacant peaceful physical possession of two rooms, one at the ground floor and one at the first floor of the suit property. Further restraint was sought on the appellant/defendant from creating any third party interest in the suit property i.e. the two rooms.

4. It is contended in the plaint that the husband of the respondent/plaintiff had purchased a plot of land on 28.11.1988 and thereafter built the house on the subject plot of land. Husband of the plaintiff expired on 13.10.1993 leaving behind plaintiff/respondent, her daughters and one son. The daughters and the son of the respondent relinquished their rights in the subject property in favour of the respondent by a registered Relinquishment Deed dated 12.04.2017. Consequently, the respondent became the absolute owner of the suit property.

5. As per the plaint, the son of the respondent married the appellant on 08.02.2011 and thereafter resided with the respondent as a family member. It is contended that there were certain matrimonial issues between the appellant and the son of the respondent and thereafter they started living separately.

6. It is contended in the plaint that appellant started living at her parents' house after the disputes arose. It is further contended that in August, 2015, appellant illegally occupied two rooms on the first floor of the suit property by forcibly entering the same. It is contended that the respondent did not object to the same hoping that good sense would prevail and the disputes would get resolved.

7. It is further contended that false and frivolous allegations were levelled against the respondent/plaintiff based on which FIR has been got registered on false and baseless facts.

8. It is contended that the appellant/defendant had attempted to prevent the ingress of the respondent by putting her locks on the main gate of the ground floor pursuant to which a complaint was filed with the Police Station, Sector 23, Dwarka. Subsequently, on 15.02.2018, respondent got to know that the locks of the respondent on the rooms at the ground floor which were in possession of the respondent had been broken and certain articles removed.

9. It is contended in the plaint that the respondent/plaintiff regularly visits the suit property and is maintaining the ground floor and the entire property is in possession of the respondent/plaintiff except two rooms i.e. one on the first floor and one on the ground floor which are in possession of the appellant.

10. In the written statement, appellant has denied that she forcibly entered the suit property in August, 2015 and illegally occupied two rooms on the first floor of the suit property. It is contended in the written statement that appellant lives in one single room that is located on the ground floor.

11. In paragraph 11 of the written statement, appellant has denied that she has deprived the respondent/plaintiff from entering into the suit property or that she has put her locks on the main gate. On the other hand it is contended that it

Click Here to Read the rest of this document