SUNITA vs RAMPHAL

This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the

appellant/defendant no.1/daughter-in-law impugning the concurrent

judgments of the courts below; of the Trial Court dated 3.9.2014 and

the First Appellate Court dated 25.2.2017; by which the suit filed by

the respondent/plaintiff/father-in-law for mandatory injunction to

handover vacant physical possession of the suit property has been

decreed. The suit property/premises is two rooms, kitchen, toilet and

bathroom on the ground floor on the property bearing no. A-425,

Ground Floor, 25 ft. road, Gali No.1, Meet Nagar, Delhi-110093

The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff is the

owner of the suit property and he has proved ownership of the same by

means of the documents executed in his favour being the General

Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Receipt, Will etc and which

were proved before the Trial Court as Ex.PW1/B (colly).

Respondent/plaintiff/father-in-law pleaded that appellant/defendant

no.1 is not having good relations with the respondent/plaintiff and the

appellant/defendant no.1 has misbehaved with the respondent/plaintiff

and even threatened to kill him. It is pleaded by the

respondent/plaintiff that appellant/defendant no.1 is a lady of criminal

nature who wants to illegally grab the suit property.

Before the trial court the appellant/defendant no.1

remained ex-parte. A written statement was only filed by the

defendant no.2, the son of the respondent/plaintiff and husband of the

appellant/defendant no.1, and who has not even been impleaded in this

appeal. Defendant no.2 did not dispute the ownership of the suit

property of the respondent/plaintiff/father, and which in any case was

otherwise duly proved in terms of the documents Ex.PW1/B (colly).

Therefore, it is seen that on the one hand the

respondent/plaintiff proved his case, and therefore, was entitled to the

reliefs prayed, the appellant/defendant no.1 remained ex-parte and no

evidence has been led in the courts below on behalf of the

appellant/defendant no.1 with respect to her legal entitlement to stay in

the suit property.

Law in this regard is well established in view of the

judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.R. Batra and Another

Vs. Taruna Batra (Smt.) (2007) 3 SCC 169 that a daughter-in-law has

no right in the property of the father-in-law.

Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant no.1 argues

that the defendant no.2/son was gifted the suit property by the

respondent/plaintiff, and which is said to be admitted by the

respondent/plaintiff as per his pleadings, however, it is noted that this

argument is without substance because admittedly not only the gift

deed was not filed, but also that the gift deed admittedly has not been

registered, and once the gift deed is not registered, the same does not

pass any title of the suit property from the respondent/plaintiff to the

defendant no.2/son.

In view of the above discussion, no substantial question of

law arises for this appeal to be entertained under Section 100 CPC.

Dismissed.

In view of the facts of the present case, however the

appellant/defendant no.1 is granted time till 31.12.2017 to vacate the

suit premises subject to the appellant filing the usual undertaking in

this Court within a period of two weeks to vacate the suit premises on

or before 31.12.2017.