SUSHMA RANI Vs. SANJEEV KUMARSIPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dtd. 17/9/2020 (Annexure P-1) rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) filed by the defendant-petitioner; and for setting aside the order dtd. 17/9/2020 (Annexure P-2) whereby on the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC the defendant-petitioners have been restrained from forcibly and illegally interfering in the possession of the plaintiff-respondent over the suit property.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent is not maintainable and is barred by law inasmuch as the defendant-petitioner No.1 is the daughter-in-law and as per the law she is entitled to a residence in a shared household which is owned by her in-laws. Learned counsel in support of his arguments has relied upon the judgments in the cases of Satish Chander Ahuja Vs. Sneha Ahuja [2021 (1) SCC 414]; Subhash and Anr. Vs. Shivani [2016 (4) RCR (Civil) 21]; Anita Kumari @ Anita Rani and Ors. Vs. Kishan Kumar and Anr. [2018 (4) RCR (Criminal) 884] and T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal [1977 (4) SCC 467]. Learned counsel has further relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Sunita Rani Vs. Sushil Kumari [2015 (66) RCR (Civil) 842] to contend that status of son or daughter-in-law in the house owned by the father and father-in-law, mother and mother-in-law is that of a licensee and in case the licensor does not want licensee in the house, he or she can always seek possession by filing a suit for mandatory injunction. Regarding the impugned order dtd. 17/9/2020 (Annexure P-2) passed on the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, it is submitted that as the suit itself was not maintainable there was no occasion for the Trial Court to grant any ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffrespondent.

(3.) Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff- respondent has contended that the present suit is simpliciter for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-petitioners from forcibly and illegally interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff-respondent over the residential house in dispute. There is no prayer for eviction of the defendantpetitioners from the house and hence the argument raised by learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners that no suit would be maintainable against a daughter-in-law for eviction, except for a suit for mandatory injunction, cannot be accepted. It is further the contention of learned senior counsel that the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC (Annexure P-5) itself does not even so much as refer to the term 'shared household' or that the defendantpetitioner No.1 has a status of a licensee. It is submitted that the defendantpetitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the parents of the daughter-in-law (defendantpetitioner No.1) and would in any case have no right over the property of the plaintiff-respondent.