Shalu vs Meera Batra And Anr

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Reserved on: 12 March, 2026
th
Pronounced on: 05 June, 2026
+ RSA 22/2022, CM APPL. 9470-9471/2022 & 40208/2024
SHALU
W/o Sh. Munish Kumar Lakhina
R/o 2A/44, Ground Floor,
Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. ....Appellant
Through: Mr. Mohammad Sajid and Mr.
Abdullah Bin Masood, Advocates
with Appellant in person.
versus
1. MEERA BATRA
W/o Shyam Batra
R/o 9/117, Second Floor,
Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi.

2. MUNISH KUMAR LAKHINA
S/o Late Sh. Wazirchand
R/o 2A/44, Ground Floor,
Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Tushar Sannu, Ms. Pulak Gupta
Joshi and Ms. Payal Rajput, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) has been filed on behalf
of the Appellant/Defendant No.2, against the Judgment dated 22.11.2021,
whereby the learned ADJ has upheld the Judgment of learned Civil Judge
dated 18.11.2020 decreeing the Suit for Permanent Injunction in favour of
RFA 22/2022 Page 1 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:08.06.2026
13:56:56

the Plaintiff, thereby directing the Defendants to handover the vacant and
peaceful possession of the Suit property to the Plaintiff and also restrained
the Defendants for creating third party interest, in the Suit property.
2. The Plaintiff/Respondent, Meera Batra filed a Suit No.609518/2016
for Mandatory Injunction against the Defendants/Appellants directing them
to remove their belongings from the Suit property and to hand over the
Possession and for Permanent Injunction for restraining them from creating
third party interest.

3. The facts in brief are that the Plaintiff/Respondent No.1, Smt. Meera
Batra is the owner of Property bearing No.2-A/44, Ground Floor and Second
floor along with roof rights, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. The property
originally belonged to her mother Smt. Maya Devi and devolved upon her
by virtue of Will dated 06.02.2012, after her demise on 20.05.2012.
4. The Defendant No.1/Respondent No.2 Munish Kumar Lakhina is the
brother of the Plaintiff, who after the demise of the mother, requested the
Plaintiff to be permitted to reside in the Ground Floor portion, ( hereinafter
referred to as ‘Suit Property’ ). The Plaintiff keeping in view the relationship
with the Defendant No.1, permitted him to occupy the Ground Floor as a
licensee.
5. In October, 2012 Defendant No.1 got married to Defendant
No.2/Appellant Smt. Shalu and they both started residing together in the Suit
property. However, both Defendant No.1 and 2 started harassing the
Plaintiff and other family members and threatening them to transfer the
property in the name of the Defendants.
6. Since the Suit property in terms of the Will and was also for the
benefit of the daughter of Defendant No.1 from his first marriage, the
RFA 22/2022 Page 2 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:08.06.2026
13:56:56

Defendant No.2 started harassing, humiliating and threatening the daughter
to such an extent that she is now in the custody of the Plaintiff.
7. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Plaintiff was not interest in
keeping the Defendants as a licensee and issued a Legal Notice dated
02.07.2015, asking them to vacate the Suit premises. It was further stated
that in case they failed to vacate, they would also be liable to play damages,
mesne profits for illegal use and occupation.
8. The Notice was duly served upon the Defendants, despite which they
failed to hand over the Possession to the Plaintiff. Instead Defendants called
Property Dealers on 15.07.2015 and tried to create third party interest in the
Suit property, though they did not succeed because of the timely
intervention of the Plaintiff and other respectable persons.
9. Hence, the Plaintiff file the Suit for Mandatory Injunction for seeking
possession of the Suit property and Permanent Injunction for restraining the
Defendants from creating third party interest in the Suit property.
10. The Defendant No.1 Munish Kumar Lakhina, in his Written
Statement claimed that the Plaint did not disclose any cause of action, since
the Defendant No.1 has already left the Suit premises along with his
daughter, though few of his articles and also of the daughter, were still lying
in the Suit premises, which he was not being permitted to take, by Defendant
No.2.
11. On merits, the Defendant No.1 stated that he was residing in the Suit
premises along with his mother and minor daughter, as he was already
divorced from his first wife by mutual consent and the child was being
looked after by the mother. In order to safeguard the interest of the minor
daughter as well as of the Plaintiff, the mother of Plaintiff and Defendant
RFA 22/2022 Page 3 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:08.06.2026
13:56:56

No.1 had executed a Will dated 06.02.2012 whereby the Plaintiff was given
the Ground Floor and Second Floor of the Suit property, as First Floor had
already been sold by her during her lifetime.
12. The Defendant No.1 further stated that after the demise of the mother,
he had requested the Plaintiff to retain the accommodation as a licensee.
Defendant No.1 got married to Defendant No.2, after the demise of the
mother, but she made his life a miserable hell. He further stated that soon
after the marriage, Defendant No.2 started threatening Defendant No.1 and
he was called to the local Police Station, not less than 35-40 times and had
been made to sit in the Police Station. He was regularly harassed and
tortured. The Defendant No.1 along with the child, thus, vacated the
premises.
13. He admitted receiving the Notice, but since he had already vacated the
premises, no Reply was filed. It was submitted that since he had already
vacated the premises, no relief was maintainable against him.
14. The Defendant No.2/Appellant Smt. Shalu in her Written Statement
claimed that the Suit was based on suppression of material facts.
Admittedly, the Suit property was her matrimonial home. Because of the
matrimonial discord between her and the husband, the Plaintiff in collusion
with Defendant No.1 has filed the present Suit, which is not maintainable
and has no cause of action.
15. It was further claimed that Smt. Maya Devi was not competent to
execute the Will, as she was not the absolute owner of the property. It is
only to deprive Defendant No.2 of her right to reside in the matrimonial
house, that Plaintiff in connivance with Defendant No.1, had filed the
present Suit.
RFA 22/2022 Page 4 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:08.06.2026
13:56:56

16. The Defendant No.1 in furtherance of this design, has shown himself
to be residing in separate accommodation. In case there was any dispute
between Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 in regard to the inheritance of the
property, then Defendant No.1 would not have so easily shifted leaving
behind the daughter. In fact, Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 are on good
family terms and Defendant No.1 has also inherited the Suit property. For
this reason she has every right to use and occupy the Suit premises.
17. It was further alleged that the Will of the mother, was a forged and
fabricated document.
18. On merits, the defence as set up in preliminary objections was
reaffirmed and it was stated that the Suit was liable to be dismissed.
19. The Plaintiff in the Replication reaffirmed the assertions made in the
Plaint and denied the allegations made in the Written Statement.
20. Issues on the pleadings were framed on 26.09.2015, as under:
“(i) Whether there is no cause of action in favour of the
plaintiff to file the present suit? OPP
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of
mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of
permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP
(iv) Relief.”
21. The Plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and tendered her evidence by
way of her Affidavit. The photocopy of the Sale deed dated 09.06.1982 in
favour of Smt. Maya Devi is Ex.PW1/1. The copy of the Will dated
06.02.2012 of Smt. Maya Devi is Ex.PW1/2. The other documents
including Legal Notice dated 02.07.2015 are Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/11. The
RFA 22/2022 Page 5 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:08.06.2026
13:56:56

Plaintiff, however, was not cross-examined by Defendant No.2, though was
extensively cross-examined by Defendant No.2.
22. PW2 Smt. Suman Lata and PW3 Shri Prashant Kumar deposed that
Smt. Maya Devi was known to them, for the last 4-5 years prior to her
demise. They had signed the Will dated 06.02.2012, as the attesting
witnesses.
23. The Defendant No.1 did not adduce any evidence .
24. The Defendant No.2 examined herself as D2W1 and deposed on
similar lines as the defence set up by her in the Written Statement.
25. Learned Civil Judge on appreciation of the evidence, held that the
Suit property was originally owned by Smt. Maya Devi, mother of the
Plaintiff and Defendant No.1, who had executed the Will dated 06.02.2012
Ex.PW1/2 in favour of the Plaintiff to the exclusion of all other legal heirs.
The mother died on 20.05.2012 after which the Plaintiff acquired the
absolute ownership in the property.
26. Subsequently, Defendant No.2 got married and started living in the
property. Defendant No.2 justified her right to continue to reside in the
property by claiming that it was her shared household in terms of Protection
of Women against Domestic Violence Act.
27. The learned Civil Judge referred to Satish Chand Ahuja vs. Sneha
Ahuja 2020 SCC OnLine SC 841 and observed that the Defendant No.2 had
come to reside in the Suit property, after her marriage. It was not ever her
case that she and the Plaintiff ever resided together under the same roof and
shared common kitchen at any point of time. No domestic relationship was
proved between Defendant No.2 and the Plaintiff . It was the specific case of
the Plaintiff that she had been permitted the appellant, to reside gratuitously
RFA 22/2022 Page 6 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:08.06.2026
13:56:56

as mere licensee .
28. It was thus, held that there was no domestic relationship established
between the parties and, therefore, it was held that the Plaintiff/Respondent
was entitled to decree of Mandatory Injunction and directed the Defendant
No.2 to hand over the physical possession of the Suit property to the
Plaintiff and also restraint her from creating third party rights in the Suit
property.
29. The Defendant No.2 Smt. Shalu filed the first Appeal bearing RCA
No.71/2020 . The learned ADJ re-appreciated the evidence of both the
parties and concurred with the findings of the learned Civil Judge. It was
held that Smt. Maya Devi was proved to be the owner of the Suit property
which devolved upon the Plaintiff Smt. Meera Batra, by virtue of the Will
Ex.PW1/2. The Plaintiff was thus, the owner of the Suit property.
Furthermore, the findings that the Appellant was not in domestic
relationship and had no right to continue in the property, was upheld. The
Appeal was consequently, dismissed.
30. Aggrieved, the Appellant Smt. Shalu has filed the present Regular
Second Appeal .
31. The grounds of challenge are that the learned Civil Judge had
wrongly assumed the jurisdiction under the Domestic Violence Act, by
applying Section 26 to decide the residence right of the Appellant, even
though nothing was pleaded, either expressly or impliedly in the entire
pleadings. The Judgment of the Supreme Court in Satish Chand Ahuja
(supra) had observed that DV Act would be relevant and has to be given due
weight as one of the evidence in Civil Suit, but the evidentiary value of such
evidence, is limited.
RFA 22/2022 Page 7 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:08.06.2026
13:56:56

32. The findings of the Magistrate although not binding on the Civil
Court, but any Order passed under D.V Act, should be given its due weight.
Both the Courts have failed to discuss the interim Residence Order dated
21.02.2 019 passed by learned M.M under the D.V Act or its evidentiary
value. Instead of referring to his Order dated 21.02.2019, the learned Trial
Court has given its own findings on fact which are disputed under D.V. Act.
33. The learned Civil Judge in clear violation of the basic principles of
law has failed to maintain basic judicial Order. The expressions ‘shared
household’, ‘respondent’, ‘aggrieved person’ etc. were not even in issue
before the learned Trial Court.
34. It has also not been considered that the Suit was collusive between the
Respondent and defendant No.1, as is evident from the assertions that right
from the first day of marriage from October, 2012, the Appellant and her
husband started harassing the Respondent No.1. The complaints, however,
have been made only in 2014 and 2015.
35. The Will of Smt. Maya Devi, is a forged and fabricated document
created only to defeat the right of residence of the Appellant. The learned
Civil Judge has erroneously relied upon the testimony of PW2 Smt. Suman
Lata to uphold the genuineness of the Will. PW2 the attesting witness was
not a credible witness as she had admittedly never met Smt. Maya Devi and
she also did not remember when she had met her. She wrongly stated the
age of Smt. Maya Devi as 85 years when in the Will it was stated to be 71
years. The PW2 had contradicted PW1 when she had deposed that her
statues was in healthy condition at the time of her death. Smt. Suman Lata
was not a reliable witness and her testimony was liable to be discarded.
36. The Suit was a counter-blast to the Complaints lodged against them,
RFA 22/2022 Page 8 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:08.06.2026
13:56:56

only to oust the Appellant from her matrimonial home. Just after one month
of filing of the Suit, the Respondents got transferred the electricity and water
connection in the name of the Plaintiff, which was originally in the name of
Smt. Maya Devi.
37. Though a Written Statement had been filed by Defendant No.1 her
husband, but he practically admitted the entire case of the Plaintiff. The
Defendant No.1/husband has failed to cross-examine Plaintiff or her
witnesses and has even failed to step into the witness box. This aspect of
collusion between the two Respondents, has not been considered in the right
perspective.
38. Furthermore, this Court in Navneet Arora vs. Surinder Kaur & Ors.,
had held that in terms of Section 19(1)(f) DV Act, the Court may direct the
Respondent/husband to secure same level of accommodation for the
aggrieved person, as she enjoyed in the shared household or to pay the rent
for the same, if the circumstances so desired. However, no directions have
been given for arranging the alternate accommodation of the Appellant.
39. The Appellant claimed that she has been residing in the Suit property
since the date of her marriage along with her husband, uninterruptedly and
peacefully and has got a valuable right, title and interest to continue in
possession of the Suit property.
40. The Plaintiff had claimed that the Appellant had been inducted as a
licensee, but she admitted in her cross-examination that there was no written
document to this effect. The impugned Judgment dated 22.11.2021 of
learned ADJ as well as the Judgment dated 18.11.2020 of learned Civil
Judge, are therefore, liable to be set aside.
41. The Appellant has filed her written submissions on the same lines as
RFA 22/2022 Page 9 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:08.06.2026
13:56:56

the grounds of Appeal. She stated that she was subjected to constant
domestic violence and harassment by the Appellant, for which she had made
a Complaint dated 20.06.2014 to National Commission for Women as well
as Police Commissioner. The Appellant thereafter, filed a Complaint under
Section 12 D.V. Act before the learned M.M., which was a counter-blast to
the Complaints made by the Respondent.
42. The learned Counsel on behalf of the Respondent vehemently
contended that there was no domestic relationship between the Plaintiff and
the Appellant and that the learned Civil Judge as well as learned ADJ, have
comprehensively considered this aspect, to hold that the Plaintiff and the
Appellant, were not in domestic relationship. The Suit of the Plaintiff has
been rightly, decreed and the Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Submissions heard and record perused .
43. The Plaintiff had filed the Suit for Mandatory Injunction for directing
the Defendant No.2/Appellant Shalu wife of her brother to vacate and to
hand over the possession of the Suit premises.
44. The Plaintiff had explained that the Suit property was originally
owned by Smt. Maya Devi vide Sale Deed 09.06.1982 Ex.PW1/1. She
during her lifetime had executed a Will dated 06.02.2012 Ex.PW1/2 by
virtue of which the property in question, which comprised of the Ground
Floor and the Second Floor with Terrace rights, was bequeathed to the
Plaintiff Smt. Meera Batra. Smt. Maya Devi , the mother died on 20.05.2012
and since then, the Plaintiff became the exclusive owner of the Suit
property. The Plaintiff had also examined PW2 Smt. Suman Lata and PW3
Shri Prashant Kumar who were the witnesses to the Will, who proved that
the Will had been executed by Smt. Maya Devi and they had signed the
RFA 22/2022 Page 10 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:08.06.2026
13:56:56

same as the attesting witnesses. It was thus, proved that plaintiff was the
exclusive owner of the suit property. Learned Civil Judge thus, held that the
Will of Smt. Maya Devi in favour of the Plaintiff was duly proved, a finding
which has been upheld by the learned District Judge.
45. The Plaintiff had further deposed that she had allowed her brother
Munish Kumar Lakhina, to reside on the Ground Floor of the Suit property,
a fact which again was not challenged by Defendant No.1 Munish Kumar
Lakhina, the brother of the Plaintiff. Shri Munish Kumar Lakhina got
married to Defendant No.2/Appellant in October, 2012, which again is not
in dispute. The Defendant No.1 requested the Plaintiff to allow them both to
stay on the Ground Floor. These facts have essentially not been disputed by
the Appellant as well, that after her marriage, she came to live with her
husband Munish Kumar Lakhina/Defendant No.1 on the Ground Floor i.e
the Suit property. There is, therefore, no challenge that the Appellant after
her marriage joined her husband in the Suit property where he had been
residing as a licensee/permissive user.
46. It is further deposed by the Plaintiff that because the Appellant had
started misbehaving, torturing and harassing her endlessly in respect of
which she had made various Complaints, she requested her brother as well
as the Appellant to vacate the property. She also served a Legal Notice
dated 02.07.2015 Ex.PW1/9 upon both the Defendants, asking them to
vacate the Suit property.
47. The Defendant No.1 Munish Kumar Lakhina/ brother of the Plaintiff
in his Written Statement and as per his Statement admitted that he was only
a permissive user and that he has already left the property and has no claim
to it while it is only his wife/Appellant who is residing in the Suit property.
RFA 22/2022 Page 11 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:08.06.2026
13:56:56

48. The sole question which arises is what is the right of the Appellant to
continue in occupation of the Suit property. First and foremost , it is her
husband Munish Kumar who had been permitted to occupy the Suit
premises and after marriage she had merely joined him to reside in the Suit
property, as his family member. Once, the right of the Munish Kumar itself
was terminated and he also vacated the premises, the status of the Appellant
becomes no better than that of a trespasser and she is liable to vacate the
property.

49. The learned Civil Judge , thereafter examined the legal basis, if any,
on which the Appellant could assert a right to continue occupying the suit
premises. Considering that the Appellant has commenced residing in the
property along with her Husband subsequent to their marriage , the principle
issue that arose for determination was whether she possessed any legally
enforceable right to remain in use and occupation of the suit property on the
ground that it constituted her matrimonial home or shared household .
50. The learned Civil Judge in detail considered that she and the Plaintiff
never occupied the property together and they never resided jointly and
therefore, this house could not have been termed as a shared household. It
was held that the Appellant and the Plaintiff were not in a domestic
relationship. It was thus, held that she could not defend her possession by
claiming any right, by virtue of being a family member in the Suit property.
51. These findings had also been upheld by the learned District Judge
while deciding the Appeal, vide Order dated 22.11.2021.
52. The Appellant has claimed that she had not sought protection of her
possession under the D.V. Act which was exclusively the domain of the
learned Magistrate and this aspect could not have been considered by the
RFA 22/2022 Page 12 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:08.06.2026
13:56:56

two Courts. However, Section 26 of the D.V Act itself proves that the relief
under D.V Act can be granted in any proceedings and is not limited to the
proceedings preferred before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, under the
Domestic Violence Act.
53. The learned Civil Judge as well as learned District Judge had merely
considered the law to consider if any kind of protection can be granted to the
Petitioner, but on the facts of the case, none was found to be available to her.
The reference to Domestic Violence Act by the two Courts, therefore,
cannot be considered erroneous.
54. The main contention raised by the Appellant is that there is an
evident collusion between the brother and sister, which is evident from the
fact that the Defendant No.1 husband had admitted all the facts as stated by
the Plaintiff. However, it could have been a case of collusion, had there
been any disputed facts. The ownership of the Plaintiff or Defendant having
been permitted to reside in the property has also not been disputed by the
Appellant. While she may claim that there is collusion, but in the facts and
circumstances of the case, no collusion is evident.
55. The Defendant No.1 admittedly after his marriage had brought the
Appellant to reside with him in the Suit property, but because of the
matrimonial discord, the brother separated and left the property. It has been
rightly held by both the Courts that the Appellant had come to reside with
her husband in the Suit property, as a permissive user and once, the
permission was withdrawn, she had no right, title and interest to continue to
reside in the property.
56. The Appellant had also contended that she was entitled to the right of
residence, as has been held in the case of Satish Chand Ahuja (supra) and
RFA 22/2022 Page 13 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:08.06.2026
13:56:56

the Defendant/husband should have been directed to make an arrangement
for her residence. However, she herself had stated that a Petition under
Domestic Violence Act has already been filed by her, against the husband.
Therefore, once, she has already resorted to the requisite relief, her remedy
lies against her husband and not against the Plaintiff who happens to be the
sister of her husband. The discord inter-se the husband and the wife cannot
become a penalty for a sister-in-law, who in good faith, had permitted them
to occupy her Suit property.

57. There is no Substantial Question of Law raised in the present Second
Appeal. The findings and the challenge was only to the merits of the case,
which have been rightly adjudicated by the two Courts.
58. There is no merit in the Appeal, which is hereby, dismissed . The
pending Application(s) are disposed of accordingly.


(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
JUNE 05, 2026
va
RFA 22/2022 Page 14 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:08.06.2026
13:56:56