A daughter-in-law does not acquire rights to reside in her mother-in-law's self-earned property without express permission, and her status as a licensee requires her to vacate upon request.

1) This Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant/ defendant No.2 challenging the judgment and decree dated 25.06.2015 in Civil Appeal No. 6- A/15 whereby the learned District Judge, Chhindwara dismissed the appeal of the appellant/ defendant No.2 against the judgment and decree dated 15.01.2014 in Civil Suit No. 72-A/2011 (Smt. Premlata Sodhi Vs. Suresh Sodhi and another).

2) In the Civil Suit, plaintiff had sought a decree for eviction of defendant No.1 her son and defendant No.2/ appellant herein from her House No.18 situated in Municipal Ward No. 31, Tehsil, District Chhidwara. 3) In the trial Court, it was undisputed fact that defendant No.1 is son of plaintiff.

4) This Second Appeal was admitted on 31.012024 on the following substantial question of law :-

“Whether the learned courts below is justified in holding that the appelalnt is living in the suit accommodation as licensee, when defendant No.2/ Appellant is a daughter-in-law of the appellant/ palintiff ?”

5) Regarding substantial question as above, in the trial Court on the basis of pleadings of the parties and evidence it has come out as an undisputed fact that plaintiff Smt. Premlata Sodhi who is respondent No.1 before this Court was the owner of the suit property and it is her self earned property and not ancestral property. The appellant has claimed herself to be daughter-in-law of Smt. Premlata Sodhi and wife of her son i.e. defendant No.1 Sudesh Sodhi but before the trial Court this question was never framed by the Court for the appellant herein whether Smt. Begum is daughter-in-law of Smt. Premlata Sodhi, therefore, when the suit property house is her (respondent Premlata Sodhi) self earned property, her son Sudesh would not get any right during the lifetime of his mother/ plaintiff, therefore, even for the sake of argument whether Smt. Begum and Sudesh have any marital relation or not due to which children were born would not arise in this case as the suit is only for eviction of house by the plaintiff-owner of the suit house. When the defendants did not have any right in the suit property and if it was permitted to defendants by the respondent No.1/ plaintiff for their residence then they have to evict the suit property when desired by the plaintiff and no objection can be taken in this regard. It is but to be noted that on the basis of pleadings and evidence it is not proved that defendants in any way contributed for earning the suit property (house) by the plaintiff, therefore, there is nothing on fact or law on the basis of which it can be said that defendants in the trial Court were entitled to live in the suit property without express consent/ permission of the plaintiff from the day when she desired their eviction from the suit house by filing the suit which has now travelled to this Court in Second Appeal, therefore, on the substantial question of law framed it is answered that appellant/ defendant No.2 Begum lived in the suit house as a licensee and her relationship as a daughter-in-law of the plaintiff cannot be answered in this second appeal because of lack of pleadings and evidence, therefore, the substantial question of law is answered in affirmative regarding appellant/ defendant being a licensee of plaintiff.

6. Accordingly, the instant Second Appeal is dismissed. The decree of the trial Court as well as learned First Appellate Court is confirmed.

Record of both the concerned Courts be sent back along with copy of this judgment.