Court Rules Against Widow's Claim of Right to Reside in Property Sold by Husband, Validates Bona Fide Sale and Mandatory Injunction
In a significant judgment by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Mrs. Chand Soni's appeals against eviction from her matrimonial home, a property sold by her late husband Brig. R.M. Soni, have been dismissed. The court ruled that the widow's right to reside in the shared household under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, does not extend to properties sold in bona fide transactions. The judgment confirms the rights of the bona fide purchaser, Mrs. Sabina Aggarwal, to claim possession of the property.
The legal dispute centered around the sale of House No.940, Sector-8, Panchkula, a double-storey building owned by Brig. Soni. Mrs. Soni had initially filed a suit for permanent injunction against her husband to prevent her eviction and the sale of the property, claiming it was her matrimonial home and shared household. However, the court found no evidence supporting her claim that the property was ancestral or purchased from ancestral funds.
Brig. Soni had sold the property to Mrs. Aggarwal in a bona fide transaction, which the court upheld. The judge noted the absence of any collusion between Brig. Soni and Mrs. Aggarwal, emphasizing that Mrs. Aggarwal was a bona fide purchaser with a registered sale deed. The court dismissed Mrs. Soni's contention that she could resist eviction, clarifying that Mrs. Aggarwal is not a "respondent" under the Domestic Violence Act.
Furthermore, the court addressed the maintainability of Mrs. Aggarwal's suit for mandatory injunction, ruling that since there was no cloud over the title of the purchaser and Mrs. Soni was in permissive possession, a suit for mandatory injunction was appropriate. The court also upheld the assessment of mesne profits at Rs.20,000 per month for Mrs. Soni's occupation of the property, despite the lack of direct evidence of rental rates.
The judgment underscores the legal principle that the rights of an aggrieved person in a shared household cannot prevent lawful alienation and eviction by bona fide purchasers. Mrs. Soni's claims under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, were found to be inapplicable in the context of property sold through a bona fide transaction.
This ruling sets a precedent for similar cases, where the rights of a bona fide purchaser are weighed against claims under domestic violence laws, clarifying the limitations of such claims in property disputes.
Bottom Line:
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - A widow's right to reside in a shared household does not extend to properties sold by the husband in a bona fide transaction, especially when there is no collusion or evidence proving the ancestral nature of the property. A suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable when there is no cloud over the title of the purchaser.
Statutory provision(s): Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Sections 17, 19, 26; Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Sections 39, 52, 53; Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order 41, Rule 27
Mrs. Chand Soni v. Brig. R.M. Soni, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc id # 2844831
