USHA Vs. OMWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant against the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below; whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for possession of the suit property, has been decreed by both the Courts below.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant herein is a daughter-in-law of the plaintiff/respondent. It was the case of the plaintiff that the appellant is occupying the suit house while the plaintiff is residing in a rented accommodation with her family. The plaintiff also pleaded that the appellant is having strained relations with her husband i.e. the son of the plaintiff. Plaintiff had further pleaded that she had bought the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.5,500.00 vide registered Sale Deed No. 2497 dtd. 21/8/1989 pursuant to which, Mutation No. 8600 was also sanctioned in her favour. Possession of the suit property was taken by the plaintiff at the time of purchase itself. The plaintiff had then constructed house on the suit land and used the same for residential purpose. It was alleged that the defendant under the influence of her father had threatened the plaintiff to transfer the suit house in the name of the defendant otherwise, she will involve the plaintiff in false dowry case. The defendant had also harassed, humiliated, and threatened the plaintiff to kill her and also caused beatings to the plaintiff in collusion with her father. In June 2013, the plaintiff started residing in another house; and defendant in the absence of the plaintiff had entered upon the suit house forcibly. In July 2014, the plaintiff had gone to her house, but the defendant did not allow her to enter in the suit house and flatly refused to vacate the suit house. In this background, plaintiff had filed the present suit on 24/7/2014.

(3.) Upon notice, defendant had contested the suit by filing written statement and stating that she had no source of income; that the suit house had been purchased from joint family income; that the defendant has legal right to reside in her matrimonial home, which was purchased by her father-in-law and later on constructed by her husband. Accordingly, dismissal of the suit was prayed for.