HC: Appropriate Reliefs must be given to the Right of the Senior Citizen’s to Live Peacefully in a shared Household

  

The Punjab and Haryana HC was dealing with the petition filed for the possession, damages and permanent injunction in respect of the property.

Brief Facts:

The plaintiff claims to be the exclusive and absolute owner of the suit property. The suit property forms part of a larger structure comprising of other floors. The suit has been filed against the daughter-in-law of the plaintiff who is the defendant No.1 and her mother who is the defendant No.2. The son of the plaintiff Sh. Vikas Sood expired on 29th September, 2020.

Petitioner’s Contention:

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complete property was originally owned by the husband of the plaintiff. He expired intestate on 13th April, 1999 leaving behind the plaintiff, her son Sh. Vikas Sood (now deceased) and Ms. Babita Malhotra (married daughter). A Relinquishment Deed was executed by Sh. Vikas Sood and Ms. Babita Malhotra in favour of the plaintiff on 15th December, 1999 which was a registered document.

He submitted that on the basis of these documents a Conveyance Deed was also executed in the name of the plaintiff. None of these documents have been challenged by the plaintiff’s son and daughter or even by the daughter-in-law in any proceedings. The defendants have also not questioned the execution of the documents in this case, though the defence raised is that the daughter-in-law had share in the suit property through her late husband who had a share in the suit property. He also argued that the daughter-in-law was making life miserable for the plaintiff by filing cases against her and raising quarrels as she was claiming rights in the suit property and other properties belonging to the plaintiff and also raising disputes with the grandson of the plaintiff.

Respondent’s Contention:

The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the application was liable to be dismissed as the defendants had specifically disputed the title of the plaintiff to the suit property and the matter required determination by way of trial on the basis of evidence. He submitted that since the suit property formed the shared household of the daughter-in-law, she could not be evicted from the suit premises. Moreover, her rights to residence in the suit premises have been protected by the interim order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 14th January, 2021 in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 which protection could not be defeated by seeking an eviction through an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.

He also submitted that the defendant No.2 was herself a widowed and aged lady and she had no other place to go and therefore, she too could not be evicted. It is submitted that the allegations of the plaintiff that the defendants had an alternative place of residence in Pune, Maharashtra are vague and cannot be believed.

HC’s observations:

After the submissions made by both the parties the HC observed that the daughter-in-law has admitted that the property originally belonged to her late father-in-law and a Perpetual Lease Deed had been executed in his favour. On the one hand she contends that the plaintiff has executed a Will dated 16th December, 2019 bequeathing her property equally between her son and her daughter and at the same time claims that the plaintiff had only a life interest in the suit property as per the Will dated 22nd December, 1991 of the plaintiff’s husband.

Clearly, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the two pleas cannot stand together. But at the same time, she has glossed over the registered Relinquishment Deed dated 15th December, 1999. It reflects a desperate attempt to question the plaintiff’s exclusive title to the suit property, which attempt has failed absolutely. Even after the marriage of the deceased son of the plaintiff to the daughter-in-law, the son never questioned the validity of the Relinquishment Deed, by instituting any legal proceedings. Therefore, the challenge to the title of the plaintiff, as sought to be raised by the daughter-in-law, is a completely untenable one.

The HC relied upon the case of Satish Chander Ahuja Vs. Sneha Ahuja, said that “the mere fact that premises take on the nature of shared household would not per se be a complete defence to a suit for possession filed by the owner of the property, being the in-laws of the defendant/aggrieved person, nor is such a suit barred. The protection under the DV Act assuring the residence of the aggrieved person in the shared household does not vest any proprietary or indefeasible right on the aggrieved person. It is also subject to eviction being initiated in accordance with law.”

HC relied upon the case of S. Vanitha Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru urban District and Others, where SC held that “when faced with competing claims of the parties, one constituting a shared household and the other the right of the senior citizen to live peacefully in the twilight of their life, appropriate reliefs must be given. In view of the clear facts and circumstances, the plaintiff is clearly entitled to seek possession of the suit premises from the two defendants without the rigours of an unnecessary and prolonged trial at her age.”

HC held:

The HC after evaluating various submissions made by both the parties held that even where a residence is clearly a shared household, it does not bar the owner, the plaintiff herein, from claiming eviction against her daughter-in-law, if the circumstances call for it. It clear that the daughter-in-law in order to wrest a settlement from the plaintiff, has made efforts to pressurise her while staying in her premises. By inducting her mother and for a short time her sister, the daughter-in-law seems to have made an attempt to assert rights in respect of the suit property, clearly causing distress to the plaintiff.

HC Allowed the under-Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

Bench: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Asha Menon

Case Title: Madalsa Sood v. Maunicka Makkar & Anr.

Case Details: CS(OS) 93/2021

Read Judgment;  

Social media is bold.

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!  

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure