It is rather shameful for a son-in-law to plead that he had been adopted as a member of his father-in-law’s family, the Kerala High Court has observed while dismissing an appeal in a property dispute case.
The High Court held that a son-in-law cannot have any legal right in his father-in-law’s property and building, even if he has spent any amount for the construction of the building.
Justice N Anil Kumar issued the order while dismissing the appeal filed by Davis Raphel of Taliparamba, Kannur against an order of the Payyannur Sub Court, dismissing his claim over the property of his father-in-law Hendry Thomas.
The father-in-law filed a suit before the trial court claiming permanent injunction interdicting Davis from trespassing on his property or interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property and the house.
According to Hendry, he obtained the property by virtue of a gift deed by Fr James Nasrath for and on behalf of St Paul’s Church, Thrichambaram in Kannur. Hendry claimed that he had constructed the house, where he is residing with his family, using his own money. He argued that his son-in-law has no manner of right over the property.
Davis, his son-in-law, argued that he had married the only daughter of Hendry and has been effectively adopted as a member of the family following the marriage. Moreover, the title of the property itself is questionable as the alleged gift deed was executed by the church authorities for the family. Hence, the son-in-law maintained that he has a right to reside in the house
The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that it was difficult to hold that the son-in-law is a member of the family. “It is rather shameful for the son-in-law to plead that he had been adopted as a member of the family, subsequent to the marriage with Hendry’s daughter," observed the court while accepting the order of the trial court that held that the son-in-law has no right in the property.
Justice N Anil Kumar while dismissing a second appeal with costs, remarked as such: “When the plaintiff (father-in-law) is in possession of the property, defendant, son-in-law cannot plead that he had been adopted as a member of the family, subsequent to the marriage with plaintiff’s daughter and has right in the property. Residence of son-in-law, if any, in the plaint schedule building is only permissive in nature. Hence, son-in-law cannot have any legal right to his father-in-law’s property and building, even if he has spent an amount on the construction of the building."
The principal question for consideration before the court was whether a son-in-law can claim any legal right in his father-in-law’s property.
The court noted that the plaintiff was paying tax to the property and to the building. He had also been residing in the plaint schedule building. It was also found to be difficult to hold that the defendant is a member of the family. “The family of the plaintiff consists of his wife and daughter only,” the court said.
The plaintiff’s wife and daughter had also filed for a protection order against the defendant. Even as the cases were settled, the behaviour of the defendant became intolerable, which allegedly forced the plaintiff to seek a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining his entry.
Read Judgement Here:
Share this Document :
Picture Source :
