Ownership claims must be supported by formal documentation such as a will or deed; mere occupancy and payment of bills do not confer legal title.

JUDGMENT :

Alka Sarin, J.

The present appeal is by the defendant No.8-appellant against the judgements and decrees dated 16.11.2016 and 01.10.2019 passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent No.1.

2. Briefly, the facts are that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed a suit for possession by partition of a residential house after declaring her as co-owner to the extent of 1/5 share. In the suit a permanent injunction was also sought for restraining the defendant No.8-appellant from making any alterations, changes or delivering the possession of the house in dispute to anybody else. It was averred that the house in dispute was owned and possessed by Rajinder Pal Singh who died intestate without executing any Will and he left behind the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and defendant Nos.1 to 7-respondent Nos.2 to 8 as his heirs. As such the plaintiff-respondent No.1 was co-owner to the extent of 1/5 share, while the other defendant-respondents also were co-owners to the extent of their shares. The house in dispute was joint between the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and the defendant Nos.1 to 7-respondent Nos.2 to 8 and had not been partitioned so far. According to the plaintiff-respondent No.1, the defendant No.8-appellant, being the divorced wife of defendant No.7-respondent No.8, had no right, title or interest in the house in dispute. The plaintiff-respondent No.1 had asked the defendants many times to admit her claim but they refused. Hence, the suit. The suit was contested only by the defendant No.2-respondent No.3 and the defendant No.8-appellant. As per the defendant No.2-respondent No.3 the defendant No.8-appellant was the legally wedded wife of defendant No.7-respondent No.8 and that the suit had been filed to oust her from the house in dispute. Defendant No.8-appellant in her written statement took the plea that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 had nothing to do with the house in dispute. According to the defendant No.8-appellant, the house in dispute was earlier owned by Rajinder Pal Singh. After her marriage to the defendant No.7-respondent No.8, the couple did not have cordial relations and ultimately the defendant No.7-respondent No.8 left the company of the defendant No.8-appellant who continued to reside in the house in dispute with her father-in-law, Rajinder Pal Singh. As per the defendant No.8- appellant, Rajinder Pal Singh relinquished all his rights with regard to the house in dispute in her favour in March 1981 and since then she was the owner in exclusive possession of the house in dispute and was paying all the electricity bills, telephone bills and water bills to the respective departments from her own pocket. The defendant No.7-respondent No.8 admitted the claim of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 while the remaining defendants were proceeded against ex-parte.

3. The Trial Court framed the following issues :

1. Whether plaintiff is co-sharer in the house in dispute to the extent of 1/5 share ? OPP

2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to separate possession to the extent of 1/5 share in the house in dispute as prayed for ? OPP

3. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD

4. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action to file present suit ? OPD

5. Whether suit of plaintiff is not maintainable ? OPD

6. Whether suit of plaintiff is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPD

7. Whether site plan produced by the plaintiff is incorrect ? OPD

8. Relief.

4. Vide judgement and decree dated 16.11.2016 the Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent No.1. The appeal by the defendant No.8-appellant against the decision of the Trial Court was dismissed by t