RSA No. 3871 of 202 IN THE HIGH I. Sarita Thakran Long Lata @ Launge II. Sarita Thakran Long Lata @ Launge CORAM: HON’BLE M Argued by:- Mr. Sum For app Mr. Am For the DEEPAK GUPTA, J. These two Re Procedure are direc by the learned Addit by the present appe the plaintiff–respond ₹10,000/- per mont possession. 2. The par Court. 2025 & 4007 of 2025 Page N: 1 of 5 Pages IGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARY RSA No. 3871 of 2025(O&M Versus e Lata RSA No. 4007 of 2025 (O& Versus e Lata Reserved on: 12.02.2026 Pronounced on: 16.02.202 LE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Sumit Sangwan, Advocate appellant Amit Kumar Jain, Advocate the respondents. Regular Second Appeals under Se irected against the common judgm dditional District Judge, Gurugram, ppellant–defendant was dismissed pondent was allowed to the extent onth from the date of institutio parties are referred to as per their ARYANAAT CHANDIGARH O&M) … Appellant … Respondent (O&M) … Appellant … Respondent .2026 r Section 100 of the Code of Civil dgment dated 04.11.2025 passed am, whereby the appeal preferred ssed and the cross-appeal filed by tent of granting mesne profits @ ution of the suit till delivery of heir original status before the trial ivil ed ed by @ of rial YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.16 14:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 3871 of 202 3. The pla the defendant to va Islampur, Gurugram rights; and recovery had been purchased sale deed dated 01. Will dated 06.07.20 Upon his death on absolute owner.The 06.12.2007, was per revoked on 15.01.20 4. The def by the State; that th shared household w Violence Act, 2005 for mandatory injunc 5. The tria the parties, partly de profits. However, t also granted mesne p 6. Aggriev concurrent decrees court. 7. This cou the record. 8. At the o under Section 100 C findings of fact can perverse, based on 2025 & 4007 of 2025 Page N: 2 of 5 Pages plaintiff instituted a suit seeking m o vacate the first floor of the reside ram; permanent injunction restra very of mesne profits. The case set ased by her husband Late Ram Cha 01.02.1979 Ex.P1). During his lifeti 7.2009 bequeathing the said prope on 18.07.2011, the plaintiff ass .The defendant, who was marrie permitted to occupy the first floor 1.2016. Despite termination, posses defendant’s stand was that the su t the plaintiff was not the owner; th ld within the meaning of the Protect 05; and that in view of the alleged junction without declaration was no trial Court, after framing issues and decreed the suit for mandatory i r, the First Appellate Court affirme sne profits @ ₹10,000/- per month. rieved defendant has now app s of eviction; and decree of me court has considered submissions he outset, it is necessary to note tha 00 CPC is confined to substantial cannot be disturbed unless it is s on no evidence, or arrived at by ng mandatory injunction directing sidential house situated at Village straining creation of third-party set up was that the suit property Chander Thakran, vide registered lifetime, he executed a registered roperty in favour of the plaintiff. asserted that she became the arried to the plaintiff’s son on loor as a licensee. The licence was ssession was not surrendered. suit property had been acquired r; that the premises constituted a tection of Women from Domestic ged dispute regarding title, a suit as not maintainable. and appreciating evidence led by ry injunction and declined mesne irmed the decree of eviction and nth. approached this court against f mesne profits by first appellate ons of both the sides and perused e that the jurisdiction of this Court tial questions of law. Concurrent is shown that such findings are by ignoring material evidence or ing ge rty rty ed ed . he on as ed d a tic uit by ne nd nst ate ed urt nt re or YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.16 14:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 3871 of 202 applying incorrect l within that limited sc 9. The own Courts below. The r proved. The Will dat its registration was No suspicious circu demonstrated. 10. The plea Though an Award o shows that part of t establish that posses Compensation was continued to exercis on rent. It is settled unless possession is plaintiff continues to not suffer from perv 11. The ar declaration is equa premises as daugh derivative and perm 1872 (Section 122 o the title of the licen stood terminated, th circumstances, a sui maintainable. The p was permissive. 12. The rel Domestic Violence 2025 & 4007 of 2025 Page N: 3 of 5 Pages ct legal principles. The present a ed scope. ownership of the plaintiff has been he registered sale deed in favour l dated 06.07.2009 was proved thro as also established. The death of ircumstance surrounding the exe plea of acquisition by State was dul rd of 2006 (Ex.DW2/1) was produ of the land had been released. No ssession of the constructed propert as admittedly not withdrawn. O ercise dominion over the property, ttled that mere passing of an awa n is taken in accordance with law. T es to be the owner is based on appr erversity. argument regarding maintaina qually without merit. The defend ughter-in-law and permissive oc ermissive at inception. Section 11 22 of BSA, 2023) embodies the rule licensor at the commencement of d, the possession of the defendant suit for mandatory injunction see e plea of cloud over title cannot b reliance upon the concept of s ce Act, 2005 does not advance t nt appeals have to be examined been concurrently upheld by both our of Late Ram Chander stands through an attesting witness and of the testator is not in dispute. execution of the Will has been s duly considered by courts below. roduced, the evidence on record . No document was produced to perty was ever taken by the State. n. On the contrary, the plaintiff rty, including letting out portions award does not divest ownership w. The concurrent finding that the appreciation of evidence and does ainability of the suit without fendant admittedly entered the occupant. Her possession was 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, rule that a licensee cannot deny t of the licence. Once the licence ant became unauthorized. In such seeking recovery of possession is ot be raised by one whose entry of shared household under the ce the case of the defendant. A ed th ds nd te. en . rd to te. tiff ns hip he es ut he as , ny ce ch is try he . A YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.16 14:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 3871 of 202 decree of divorce marriage between th been shown. The p dismissed. Even othe not create proprieta The suit property be Will, no indefeasible 13. The con birth right in the p acquired and testam 14. Coming ₹10,000/- per month reveals that the lice The plaintiff produc accommodation and residing in the pre termination of licenc mesne profits unde supported by materi 15. The find appreciation of evid appellant has not b ignored, that irrelev was applied. 16. In essen substitution of con Supreme Court that is impermissible un evidence. In Kondiba SCC 722, the Supre 2025 & 4007 of 2025 Page N: 4 of 5 Pages ce dated 23.01.2023 has already en the defendant and the plaintiff’s he proceedings under the Domes otherwise, the right of residence un ietary rights in property exclusively y being self-acquired and devolving ible right of residence can be claime contention that the minor son of th he property is legally misconceiv tamentary in nature. ing to mesne profits, the First onth from the date of suit till deliv licence had been terminated prior oduced rent receipts showing tha and paying ₹10,000/- per month. premises but had retained pos cence, such possession is unauthori nder Section 2(12) CPC. The amo terial on record. It cannot be terme findings recorded by both Courts evidence and correct application o ot been able to demonstrate tha elevant evidence was relied upon, o ssence, the present appeals seek re concurrent findings of fact. It is hat interference with concurrent fin unless the findings are perverse ndiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai S upreme Court authoritatively held ady been passed dissolving the iff’s son. No stay of the decree has mestic Violence Act, 2005 stand e under Section 17 of the Act does ively owned by the mother-in-law. lving upon the plaintiff through a aimed therein by the defendant. of the defendant – appellant has a ceived, the property being self- rst Appellate Court has granted delivery of possession. The record rior to the institution of the suit. that she was residing in rented nth. The defendant was not even possession by locking it. After thorized and entitles the owner to amount awarded is modest and rmed arbitrary or excessive. urts below are based on proper on of settled legal principles. The that any material evidence was on, or that any incorrect legal test k re-appreciation of evidence and t is well settled by the Hon’ble t findings of fact in second appeal erse or based on misreading of ibai Sopan Gujar & Ors., (1999) 3 held that the High Court cannot he as nd es w. a s a - ed rd it. ed en ter to nd er he as est nd ble eal of ) 3 ot YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.16 14:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 3871 of 202 interfere with concu and that the jurisdic questions of law. T substantial question 17. Accordi judgment and decre Judge, Gurugram are 16.02.2026 Jiten Whether Whether Uploade 2025 & 4007 of 2025 Page N: 5 of 5 Pages ncurrent findings of fact merely bec isdiction under Section 100 CPC is s w. The present case does not dis tion of law warranting interference. ordingly, both Regular Second A ecree dated 04.11.2025 passed by t are affirmed. Parties shall bear the her speaking/reasoned : Yes/No her reportable : Yes/No oaded on : February 16, 2026 because another view is possible, is strictly confined to substantial disclose any such perversity or nce. d Appeals are dismissed. The by the learned Additional District r their own costs. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE le, tial or he ict YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.16 14:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document