Is 18-55mm lens better or 55-200mm lens better to get with a DSLR?

I'm planning to get a DSLR. I don't know to use it.
I'm going for Nikon D3200 as per all Internet research. But it comes with diff lens kits.
18-55mm, 55-105mm, 18-200mm and 55-200mm i think.
My usage will be outing with family and some landscapes on the go. & also price also matters.
(I want good high clarity pics with good looking background and better detailed foreground)
Can anybody say if 18-55mm is ok for this or should i get anything else.

It really depends on how far away from the subject you will be photographing, I use the 18-55mm for every day use, so objects upclose and the 55-200mm for things a bit further away. But it's just personal choice. I would probably recommend the 18-55mm for what you are doing.

Yes, especially since you have no experience with these cameras. The 18-55 besides being a very good lens is also a good learning tool as you figure out how to properly operate both camera and lens.

Ideally, 18-55mm AND 55-200mm, but get the 18-55mm first.

The 18-55 is a great starter lens for family shots and landscapes. It is light and covers a useful range. The 18-200 is a great one lens solution but is significantly bigger and heavier.
Start with the 18055. After you have had it a while, if you get deeper into photography then your frustrations will dictate the next lens.

The 18 to 55 gives you a 'standard zoom' with adjustment between medium wide-angle and slight tele - ok for portraits but not powerful enough for sports or wildlife. A 55 to 200 moves on upwards from the '55' and gives a useful but not huge degree of tele for sports etc. If you only got the 55 to 200 you would have no 'normal' or 'wide-angle' capability, e.g. You would not be able to cover family stuff at home or in the garden. For some sports or wildlife you would need at least 300mm, perhaps 400mm.

The 18-55mm lens is enough to take most common shooting scenarios including family and landscapes. The 55-200mm will add more capability to shoot distant objects. The 70-300mm would be better. An 18-270mm would practically cover the range of an 18-55mm and a 70-300mm but will suffer from poorer optics. All are explained in the long read below.

http://keerok-photography.blogspot.com/2011/05/lenses-so-many-of-them-there-is-no-best.html

I can shoot professionally with just the 18-55mm lens.

I doubt the camera comes with only the 55-200mm lens as a kit. The standard kit lens is the 18-55mm and sometimes it comes as a dual lens kit with both 18-55mm and 55-200mm lenses.

There's no 55-105mm lens although you might mean the 18-105mm?

VR means Vibration Reduction in Nikon. Be aware that there are both VR and non-VR versions of both the 18-55mm and 55-200mm lenses. The VR is worth having, especially on the 55-200mm lens and the difference in price between the VR and non-VR versions is not very much.

For family and landscapes get the 18-55mm VR lens. If you can afford the option of getting the 18-105mm VR lens then go for that. It is a better, sharper lens and will be far more useful.

You might find a twin lens kit with both the 18-55mm and 55-200mm lenses, but be careful. It is often cheaper to buy the camera with 18-55mm VR lens and then buy the 55-200mm VR lens separately. Some 2-lens kits come with the non-VR version of the 55-200mm lens, which is not so good.

The 18-200mm VR lens is very good but very expensive. The 18-55mm VR and 55-200mm VR lenses bought together will be far cheaper. That means you would need to change lenses occasionally, but it is quite a big difference in price.

Personally I would start with either the 18-55mm VR or 18-105mm VR lens if I could afford it. If you find you need to get closer later on then you can consider the 55-300mm VR lens, which would give you a lot more range. If you find that you don't need the longer lens you can put the money towards something else!