1. Appeal against decree of possession of suit property in favour of husband — wife claimed co-ownership. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7769
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mini Pushkarna, J
SANGEETA – Appellant
Versus
HITESH KUMAR – Respondent
RFA-589/2015
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Manish Kapoor
For the Respondents: Aman Dhyani, Kanchan Semwal, Sonya Gupta
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Manish Kapoor
For the Respondents: Aman Dhyani, Kanchan Semwal, Sonya Gupta
A registered sale deed establishes exclusive ownership. The right to reside in a "shared household" under the PWDV Act is not a proprietary right and terminates upon the dissolution of the domestic relationship via a valid decree of divorce.
Headnote:(A) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Sections 2(s) and 17 - Right to reside in a shared household - The right to reside in a “shared household” does not create a proprietary right in favour of the woman and is subject to lawful eviction or exclusion as per due process (Para 21) - Dissolution of marriage - Once marriage is dissolved by a valid decree of divorce, the domestic relationship ends, and consequently, the substratum upon which the right of residence is founded no longer survives unless a contrary statutory right persist (Para 22).
(B) Property Law - Registered Sale Deed - Presumption of validity - A registered document is prima facie valid in law, and the onus of proof lies on the person seeking to rebut this presumption (Para 13) - Claim of joint ownership - Mere residence in the matrimonial home or payment of some loan installments towards the purchase of a property does not establish joint ownership in the absence of proof of meaningful and substantial financial contribution (Paras 17, 18).
(C) Mesne Profits - Permissive possession - Where it is admitted that the occupant contributed to loan repayments and the initial residence was permissive, the award of damages and mesne profits may be unsustainable (Paras 26, 27).
Facts of the case:
A husband sought recovery of possession of a property purchased by him via a registered sale deed, along with damages and mesne profits, from his former wife. The former wife claimed co-ownership on the grounds that the property was purchased using joint funds and that she had contributed towards loan repayments. She further asserted her right to reside in the property as a “shared household”. The parties had been divorced by a decree that had attained finality.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the registered sale deed stood exclusively in the name of the husband, establishing his exclusive ownership. The wife's contribution to a few loan installments was deemed a mutual arrangement and not consideration for ownership. The right to reside in a shared household was found to have ceased upon the dissolution of the marriage. However, the grant of damages and mesne profits was set aside due to the permissive nature of the initial possession and the wife's partial repayment of the loan.
Issues: The main issues were whether the husband was entitled to possession of the property, whether the wife was a co-owner, whether the right to reside in a "shared household" survived the divorce, and whether the husband was entitled to damages and mesne profits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a registered sale deed is presumed valid and creates exclusive title unless rebutted by substantial proof of contribution. Furthermore, the right of residence under the Domestic Violence Act is not a proprietary right and terminates when the domestic relationship ends due to a valid decree of divorce.
Result: The present appeal is partly allowed and disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- property law
- family law
- civil procedure
- evidence
Table of Contents
2. Wife claimed co-ownership and right to reside in shared household; husband asserted exclusive ownership. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
3. Registered sale deed in husband's name creates ownership presumption. Wife's loan repayments do not confer co-ownership. Divorce ends domestic relationship. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 )
4. A wife's claim to husband's property requires proof of meaningful substantive contribution, not mere residence or domestic contributions. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )
5. Appeal partly allowed; decree of possession upheld but award of mesne profits and damages set aside. (Para 28 )
6. Does a registered sale deed create a presumption of valid ownership?
Yes, a registered document is presumed validly executed. The onus is on the challenger to rebut this presumption. (Para 13 )
7. Can loan repayments by a spouse establish co-ownership of property?
No, paying loan installments does not establish co-ownership. Such payments may be a loan or mutual arrangement, not purchase consideration. (Para 17 , 18 , 25 , 26 )
8. Does a divorced wife retain a right to reside in a shared household?
No, divorce terminates the domestic relationship. The right to reside in a shared household is not indefeasible and ends with the marriage. (Para 22 , 23 )
%-
1. The present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), has been filed on behalf of the appellant/defendant/wife, i.e., Ms. Sangeeta, challenging the judgment and decree dated 26th May, 2015 (“impugned judgment”), passed by the Additional District Judge (“ADJ”)-06, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Suit No. 581/2014, titled as “Sh. Hitesh Kumar Versus Ms. Sangeeta”.
2. By way of the said suit, the respondent/plaintiff/husband, i.e., Mr. Hitesh Kumar, had sought possession of the suit property, i.e., property bearing No. B-6, Shani Bazar Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi - 110059, admeasuring 65 sq. yards, along with damages and mesne profits.
3. The Trial Court, vide the impugned judgment, has granted a decree of possession of the suit property in favour of the respondent and has further awarded damages @ Rs. 3000/- per month, from the date of institution of the suit till vacation of the suit property by the appellant.
4. The facts of the case are that the parties herein were earlier married to each other, and their marriage was duly solemnized on 11th September, 2000. Out of the said wedlock, one son was born on 29th July, 2006. The plaintiff and the defendant lived together from 11th September, 2000 to 29th April, 2007.
5. The respondent had purchased the suit property from one Shri Harbans Lal, through a registered Sale Deed dated 09th August, 2005, executed in the name of respondent.
6. On account of certain differences between the parties, the respondent initiated divorce proceeding bearing HMA No. 76/2010 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against the appellant, which ultimately led to divorce being granted vide judgment dated 21st July, 2010. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred an appeal bearing MAT. APP. No. 103/2010, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 18th February, 2013.
7. Thereafter, the SLP (C) No. 17059/2013, filed by the appellant herein before the Supreme Court, challenging the judgment of the Division Bench upholding the decree of divorce, was also dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 11th March, 2016. Moreover, Review Petition (C) No. 2869/2016, filed by the appellant herein, was also dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 19th July, 2016. Additionally, the appellant herein also filed a Curative Petition (C) 53/2017 against the aforesaid order dated 19th July, 2016 passed in review petition, which was further dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 21st February, 2017. Thus, the divorce granted in favour of the respondent has been upheld by the Supreme Court and has attained finality.
8. On account of the dispute between the parties, the respondent, who was no longer living with the appellant, and had moved out of the suit property, sent a legal notice dated 17th August, 2010 to the appellant, requesting her to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property and also, to pay damages and mesne profits @ Rs. 8000/- per month for unauthorised use and occupation of the suit property. Since, the appellant did not handover the possession of the suit property, the respondent herein filed Suit No. 581/2014 for recovery of possession, damages and mesne profits, against the appellant herein.
9. The Trial Court, on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues on 01st August, 2014:
“1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for possession of suit property bearing no. B-6, out of Khasra no. 74/19, situated at Village Hastal, Abadi known as Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059 presently known as B-6, Shani Bazar, Uttam Nagar? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for arrears of damages @ Rs. 8000/- P.M. w.e.f. September to October 2010? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages / mesne profit @ Rs. 8,000/- P.M. from the date of institution of present suit till its realization / possession is handed over? OPP
4. Whether defendant is co-owner in the suit property? OPD
5. R
