Preeti Uniyal vs Laliteshwari Uniyal

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

The appellant before this Court is the defendant in a suit, being Suit No. 616 of 2017, filed by Smt. Laliteshwari Uniyal Vs. Smt. Preeti Uniyal. In the Suit, in question, as preferred by the plaintiff/respondent, she has contended that the defendant is her daughter-in-law and, in that social capacity, she was rather permitted to reside on the first floor of the premises, which has been described as property in dispute in the suit, which was occupied by her as a licensee.

The plaintiff/respondent has contended that since she being an exclusive purchaser of the property and having purchased the same by virtue of the sale deed dated 10.10.2011, is the owner of the property and as the defendant, who happens to be her daughter-in-law, since she was married with the youngest son of the plaintiff, she was permitted to reside in certain portion of the property, in question, which belonged to the plaintiff / respondent, thus purchased by the plaintiff on 10.10.2011. Since there have been number of matrimonial disputes between the defendant and her husband, Sachin, for example, the proceedings for dissolution of marriage initiated as Divorce Case No. 836 of 2017, Sachin Uniyal Vs. Preeti Uniyal, in which, the appellant wife has filed a counter claim under Section 9 of the Hindu arriage Act, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, there have been other proceedings also drawn by the defendant/appellant against the plaintiff and other family members under the Domestic Violence Act, which is also pending consideration.

During the pendency of the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act or under the Hindu Marriage Act inter se between the defendant / appellant and her husband, it is altogether an independent proceeding, that would have no bearing over as far as the suit which was instituted by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction of defendant/appellant is concerned, who was residing as a licensee in the capacity of being the wife of son of the plaintiff. Since on account of certain matrimonial and family disputes, the license of the defendant/appellant to continue to reside in the premises was terminated by virtue of a registered notice issued to her on 6.11.2017.

In response to the plaint, seeking eviction, after the termination of the license, the defendant/appellant had put in appearance and filed her written statement being, paper No.17-A, wherein, the fact of the plaintiff, being the owner of the property by virtue of the sale deed dated 10.10.2011, was admitted and she also admitted the fact that she is the married wife of one of the sons of the plaintiff, Sachin, with whom she has solemnized the marriage on 13.10.2015 as per the Hindu rites and rituals.

In the written statement further she has also admitted that there have been other matrimonial dispute proceedings going on between the parties pertaining to the dissolution of marriage, restitution of conjugal rights as well as the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act. Meaning thereby, the plaintiff / appellant and defendant /respondent being 'Bahu and Saas' were not in good terms due to pending litigation.

The learned Trial Court, after the exchange the pleadings, had framed the following issues:

"1. क्या वादिनी वादग्रस्त सम्पत्ति के जरिये पंजीकृत विक्रय पत्र दिनांक 10.10.2011 के माध्यम से स्वामिनी है?

क्या प्रतिवादिनी वाद में वादग्रस्त सम्पत्ति पर बतौर अनुमतिदार अध्यासित है?

क्या प्रतिवादिनी की अनुमति वादिनी द्वारा दिनांक 06.11.2017 को नोटिस के माध्यम से समाप्त कर दी गयी तथा क्या प्रतिवादिनी द्वारा सूचना पत्र प्राप्त होने के बावजूद भी अनुमति वाली सम्पत्ति रिक्त नहीं की गयी?

क्या वादिनी, प्रतिवादिनी से दिनांक 06.11.2017 को 500/-रू0 प्रतिदिन की दर से हर्जा प्राप्त करने की अधिकारिणी है?

क्या वादिनी को प्रतिवादिनी के विरूद्व वाद कारण प्राप्त है?

क्या प्रतिवादिनी को घरेलू हिंसा से महिलाओं का संरक्षण अधिनियम, 2005, के तहत वादग्रस्त सम्पत्ति पर रहने का अधिकार प्राप्त है?

अनुतोष?"

The issues with which we are primarily concerned and which would be having a direct bearing on the proceedings, in question, would be issue No.1, 2 & 3, i.e. pertaining to the title of the plaintiff; and the status of the defendant/appellant viz-a-viz the property as a licensee and the termination of the license by the notice dated 6th November, 2017, as issued against the defendant/appellant by the plaintiff/respondent.

As per the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, she has placed on record the documents in her support i.e. the notice, paper No.9-C1 as well as the copy of the sale deed dated 10.10.2011, as paper No.42-C1 and various other documents showing that she happens to be the exclusive owner of the property in dispute.

In response to it, the defendant/appellant had only claimed her rights to occupy the premises on the ground that she since has married one of the sons of the plaintiff and in that capacity of being the daughter-in-law, she has a right to reside in the premises belonging to the plaintiff / respondent.

However, the learned trial court while dealing with issue No.1, pertaining to the ownership has held that in accordance with the admitted pleadings which has been raised by the defendant/ appellant herself, she has admitted the fact of the plaintiff/respondent being the exclusive owner of the property in question and had also admitted the fact that by virtue of the notice issued by the plaintiff/respondent, i.e. the owner of the property, she has terminated the license. Thus, the Court of Second Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun by virtue of the judgment dated 21.12.2018 had decreed the suit and, consequently, directing the defendant to vacate the premises and the counter claim raised by the defendant was dismissed.

While decreeing the Suit on 21.12.2018, the following directions were issued:

"आदेश

वादिनी का वाद प्रतिवादिनी के विरूद्व गुण-दोष के आधार पर आज्ञप्त किया जाता है तथा प्रतिवादिनी का प्रतिदावा विपक्षी/वादिनी के विरूद्ध खारिज किया जाता है।

प्रतिवादिनी को आदेशित किया जाता है कि प्रतिवादिनी वादग्रस्त सम्पत्ति पर से अपना सामान हटाकर उसको रिक्त कर उसका कब्जा वादिनी को दे तथा प्रतिवादिनी, उसके हित, प्रतिनिधि आदि, वादग्रस्त सम्पत्ति की प्रकति में कोई बदलाव न करें तथा जानवरों को पालकर दूध आदि का कोई कारोबार न करें। उभय पक्षकार अपना अपना वाद व्यय स्वयं वहन करेंगे।"

Being aggrieved against the said judgment, the defendant/appellant preferred an Appeal before the District Judge, being Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2019, Smt. Preeti Uniyal Vs. Smt. Laliteshwari Uniyal. The First Appellate Court, too, by the concurrent findings of facts recorded pertaining to the existence of matrimonial feud with the son of the plaintiff/respondent and also pertaining to the status of the defendant/appellant, being that of a licensee was affirmed, after considering the evidence which was adduced by the parties and, ultimately, the Appeal was also dismissed by the judgment dated 18.04.2019, against which, the present Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendant/appellant. Thus, its the concurrent judgments which are under challenge in the present Second Appeal.

The argument which has been extended by the learned counsel for the defendant /appellant is that since she being a daughter-in-law has got a right to reside in the residence, in question, since having married one of the sons of the plaintiff. No doubt the factum of marriage is an admitted fact inter se between the parties, but logically a right to reside in the premises, since being daughter-in-law, she cannot claim it as of right as against the plaintiff for the reason being that the entitlement of residence or any other benefit which is arising out of the matrimony, if at all, could be sustained, it could be sustained only against the husband by the defendant/appellant. The right of residence of the defendant/appellant in the premises that which is owned by plaintiff/respondent, order belonging to the plaintiff/respondent would only be said to be a permission which was granted to her to reside therein, the property, which exclusively belonged and recorded with the plaintiff/respondent only in the capacity of being daughter-in-law, for which, she had no legally enforceable right as against the plaintiff/respondent. Since her license to reside was validly terminated, it cannot be said that the action of the plaintiff mother-in-law was contrary to law and as per the concurrent finding which has been recorded, the status of the defendant/appellant has been treated as to be a licensee which was validly terminated and, consequently, a decree of eviction was passed against her.

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the defendant/appellant that since the appellant being the daughter-in-law and has also simultaneously got a legal right to reside in the premise under the provision of Domestic Violence Act, has been misconstrued by the defendant/appellant for the reason that if at all a right of residence of the defendant/appellant survives under the provision of Domestic Violence Act, it would always be vis-a-vis as against her husband only and not in the residence which otherwise exclusively belongs to the mother-in-law.

Even after having said so, the pendency of the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, will have no bearing as far as the determination of independent right of the plaintiff by virtue of the impugned decree are concerned, which are absolutely a settled proceedings determining the title and the status of the defendant/appellant.

The learned counsel for the caveator, Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, during the course of the argument has produce before this Court a report which has been submitted by Court Amin on 01.05.2019, whereby, while executing the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2018 in Execution Case No. 3 of 2019, Smt. Laliteshwari Uniyal Vs. Smt. Preeti Uniyal, it has been reported that in the presence of the parties to the proceedings before the Court below, the decree has already being executed and as a consequence thereto, the defendant/appellant had already vacated the premises and handed over the possession. However, this execution of the decree may not be having any bearing on the Second Appeal, in question, and the entitlement of the defendant/appellant to prefer a second appeal against the impugned judgment.

But, considering the status of the plaintiff/respondent who was determined to be the owner concurrently by both the courts below, considering the fact that both the courts below have recorded a concurrent finding pertaining to the defendant/appellant being the licensee and having being granted permission to reside by the plaintiff mother-in-law and having concurrently recorded the finding to the effect that by the notice dated 06.11.2017, the license was terminated by the plaintiff. These are the concurrent finding of facts which has been recorded on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties.

Hence, this Appeal does not called for any interference as it entails no substantial question of law to be answered by this Court. Consequently, the Second Appeal fails and is dismissed without having any impact on any other collateral proceedings which have been drawn by the defendant/appellant as against her husband.