Permissive Possession of Son and Daughter-in-law as Licensees is Revocable Through Due Process of Law

The Respondent (plaintiff), a 62-year-old woman, filed a suit for possession, permanent injunction, and mesne profits against her son (Appellant No. 1) and daughter-in-law (Appellant No. 2) regarding the first floor of property No. A-40, Shahbad Daulatpur, Delhi.

The Respondent claimed absolute ownership through three purchase transactions between 1993 and 2004, documented via GPA, Agreement to Sell, and Receipts.

She alleged the Appellants were permissive licensees whose license was revoked via a public notice and legal notice in December 2022 due to harassment and attempts to claim title.

The Appellants contended the property was purchased using Joint Hindu Family (HUF) funds and that they had a legal right to reside there.

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the Respondent on 28.11.2025.

1. Whether the Respondent established absolute ownership of the suit property and whether the Appellants' occupation was that of mere licensees.

2. Whether the suit property carried the character of Joint Hindu Family (HUF) or ancestral property.

3. Whether the daughter-in-law (Appellant No. 2) possessed an indefeasible right of residence under the DV Act, 2005.

Section 96 and Order XLI Rule 1 of the CPC regarding appeals and Order XX Rule 12 regarding mesne profits.

The principle from Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah v. Muddasani Sarojana that unchallenged testimony in cross-examination is deemed accepted.

Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Chander Sen and Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar, establishing that self-acquired property does not automatically become HUF property under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, ruling that a daughter-in-law’s right to a "shared household" under the DV Act does not override the owner's right to seek eviction through due process.

The Court found that the Respondent proved her title through a consistent chain of documents (GPAs and Agreements to Sell) dating back to 1993.

The Appellants’ plea of HUF property failed because Appellant No. 1 was a minor/student (aged 14-15) at the time of the initial purchases and provided no evidence of a common hotchpotch or ancestral nucleus.

The court noted that the Appellants did not challenge the execution of title documents during cross-examination, reinforcing the Respondent’s ownership.

Regarding the "shared household" defense, the court reasoned that while Appellant No. 2 has a right of residence, it is not absolute against the true owner and can be terminated via "procedure established by law," which the current civil suit satisfied.

Mesne profits at Rs. 5,000/month were deemed reasonable based on the existing rental income of other rooms in the same building.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Trial Court’s judgment, ordering the Appellants to deliver vacant possession and pay damages of Rs. 5,000 per month from 07.01.2023 until the date of handing over possession.