Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA
Kavita Devi – Appellant
Versus
Roshini Devi – Respondent
| 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
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 m....
Possession established by the Respondent cannot be overcome by mere claims of ownership from the Appellant without substantial evidence of prior dispossession.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the appellant to show evidence of dispossession and the significance of previous judicial findings on possession.
The court clarified that an injunction cannot stand if the party seeking it is not presently in possession of the property.
The court clarified the limited extent of the restraint on the appellants and emphasized that the factual observations and findings in the impugned order shall not have a bearing on the final disposa....
The court upheld the interim order restraining unauthorized construction on the property during the pendency of the partition suit, emphasizing the prohibition of actions that could cause irreparable....
Possession and title claims must be substantiated by registered documents; unregistered agreements do not confer legal ownership.
A woman's right to reside in a shared household under Section 17 of the PWDV Act is predicated on the existence of a valid domestic relationship; upon the dissolution of marriage, this right ceases t....
The decision by a criminal court does not bind the civil court but would be relevant while dealing with the suit for possession or eviction that may be filed against the daughter-in-law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
