KULDEEP KAUR vs SWARAN KAUR (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~ IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: 13.08.2025 Judgment pronounced on: 21.08.2025 + MAT.APP.(F.C.) 348/2024, CM APPL. 62203/2024 and CM APPL. 29620/2025 KULDEEP KAUR .....Appellant Through: Mr. J. C. Mahindro, Adv. versus SWARAN KAUR (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Chhikana and Mr. Ujjwal Arora, Advs. for R-1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR JUDGMENT ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. 1. The present Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 assails the correctness of Order dated 22.03.2024 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”] passed by the learned Family Court [hereinafter referred to as the “Family Court”], whereby the suit for possession, damages/ use and occupation charges, permanent as well as mandatory injunction filed by the Respondent, was decreed in her favour. FACTUAL MATRIX 2. The brief facts leading to the present Appeal, as pleaded, are that the Appellant and the Respondent share a matrimonial and Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN MAT.APP.(F.C.) 348/2024 Page 1 of 17 Signing Date:22.08.2025 11:55:34 familial relationship. The Appellant is the daughter-in-law of the Respondent (Plaintiff before Family Court). The Respondent’s son, Mr. Nanak Mehta, married the Appellant on 13.04.1999 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Out of the said wedlock, a male child was born on 07.02.2000. The Respondent passed away on 14.05.2016, leaving behind two legal heirs, i.e., one daughter, Ms. Pratibha Chadda and one son, Mr. Nanak Mehta, both of whom were brought on record as her legal representatives. It is relevant to note that the Respondent had executed a Will in favour of her daughter, Ms. Pratibha Chadda, who now represents her estate