A wife cannot claim residence rights in a property solely owned by her mother-in-law or father-in-law, reinforcing distinctions between exclusive ownership and shared household definitions.

JUDGMENT :

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

1. Present Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant against the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below; whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for possession of the suit property, has been decreed by both the Courts below.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant herein is a daughter-in-law of the plaintiff/respondent. It was the case of the plaintiff that the appellant is occupying the suit house while the plaintiff is residing in a rented accommodation with her family. The plaintiff also pleaded that the appellant is having strained relations with her husband i.e. the son of the plaintiff. Plaintiff had further pleaded that she had bought the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.5,500/- vide registered Sale Deed No. 2497 dated 21.08.1989 pursuant to which, Mutation No. 8600 was also sanctioned in her favour. Possession of the suit property was taken by the plaintiff at the time of purchase itself. The plaintiff had then constructed house on the suit land and used the same for residential purpose. It was alleged that the defendant under the influence of her father had threatened the plaintiff to transfer the suit house in the name of the defendant otherwise, she will involve the plaintiff in false dowry case. The defendant had also harassed, humiliated, and threatened the plaintiff to kill her and also caused beatings to the plaintiff in collusion with her father. In June 2013, the plaintiff started residing in another house; and defendant in the absence of the plaintiff had entered upon the suit house forcibly. In July 2014, the plaintiff had gone to her house, but the defendant did not allow her to enter in the suit house and flatly refused to vacate the suit house. In this background, plaintiff had filed the present suit on 24.07.2014.

3. Upon notice, defendant had contested the suit by filing written statement and stating that she had no source of income; that the suit house had been purchased from joint family income; that the defendant has legal right to reside in her matrimonial home, which was purchased by her father-in-law and later on constructed by her husband. Accordingly, dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

4. Replication was not filed.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 15.09.2015:-

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief for possession along with consequential relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action or locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

4. Relief.”

6. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 05.07.2016 had decreed the suit of the plaintiff and directed the defendant “to vacate the property to the extent which is occupied by her and to hand over the vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff within one month from the date of this judgment.” The Appeal filed by the defendant was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani vide judgment and decree dated 13.11.2017. Hence, present Second Appeal by the defendant.

7. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Ld. Courts below have wrongly decided the issue no.1 in favour of the Respondent whereas, the Ld. Courts below ought to have decided this issue no.1 in favour of the Appellant and against the Respondent. The Ld. Courts below have wrongly relied upon the versions of the Respondent and erred in not relying on the versions of the Appellant. Further, PW2 Bagrawat Singh (brother-in-law of the Plaintiff) has sp