Sarath Mohan vs The Tribunal For Maintenance And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 6702 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

   THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                      WP(C).No.26950 OF 2020(P)


PETITIONERS:

      1        SARATH MOHAN
               AGED 34 YEARS
               S/O.MOHANANATHAN NAIR, T.C.52/3782, TRITIYA,
               AZHANGAL, MANUKULADICHAMANGALAM, PAPPANAMCODE P.O.,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 018.

      2        HARIPRIYA
               AGED 34 YEARS
               W/O.SARATH MOHAN, T.C.52/3782, TRITIYA, AZHANGAL,
               MANUKULADICHAMANGALAM, PAPPANAMCODE P.O.,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 018.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.S.BALACHANDRAN (KULASEKHARAM)
               SRI.V.R.GOPU

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE TRIBUNAL FOR MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS
               AND SENIOR CITIZENS
               REPRESENTED BY THE SUB COLLECTOR/THE PRESIDING
               OFFICER, COLLECTORATE, KUDAAPPANAKUNNU,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 043.

      2        N.VANAJAKUMARY
               T.C.57/3282, AZHANGAL, MANUKULADICHAMANGALAM,
               PAPPANAMCODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 018.

      3        MOHANANATHAN NAIR
               AGED 55 YEARS
               RESIDING AT -DO- -DO-


OTHER PRESENT:

               SR.GP BIMAL K NATH

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.26950 OF 2020(P)
                               2




                            JUDGMENT

Dated this the 25th day of February 2021

The petitioners are husband and wife. The first

petitioner is the son of second and third respondent. The

respondents 2 and 3 approached the Tribunal invoking

Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and

Senior Citizens Act seeking relief. The prayer sought

included cancellation of Ext.P1 document. The learned

Tribunal by Ext.P4 order refused to set aside the Ext.P1

document holding that it does not fall within the ambit of

Section 23 of the Act. Since, the respondents herein had

no objection to petitioners staying in the house and

residence, the Court did not accept the prayer for setting

aside Ext.P1, which was in the form of a sale deed.

However, the Tribunal by the impugned order directed

that the property shall not be alienated during the life

time of the second respondent herein. The petitioner was

directed to maintain the parents in the house, till their

death. Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioners WP(C).No.26950 OF 2020(P)

have approached this Court.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners

and the learned Senior Government Pleader. The party

respondent remained absent, inspite of service of notice.

3. It is seen that Ext.P1 is a document by which

property was assigned by the second respondent to the

first petitioner herein. It seems that relation between the

parties was cordial at that point of time. Disputes appear

to have arisen only later. The above document is in the

form of a sale deed and definitely cannot fall within the

ambit of Section 23. It is seen that thereafter the first

petitioner assigned it to his wife, the second petitioner, by

Ext.P2 document.

4. Having considered this, the finding of the

Tribunal below, no relief can be granted by setting aside

the documents, is only liable to be sustained. In the light

of the above, it is clear that the property belongs to the

petitioners. Consequently, the mother is not entitled to

ask for any relief for the property. However, the Tribunal

had interdicted the petitioners from encumbering the WP(C).No.26950 OF 2020(P)

property or from alienating it. The petitioners being the

absolute owner in title and possession, I find that such a

clause cannot be permitted to remain since, it is a relief

which is beyond the scope of Section 23. However, the

duty of the first petitioner to maintain his parents is

affirmed.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part,

setting aside the order interdicting the petitioner from

alienating the property is set aside. The impugned order

is set aside, to that extend.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE

SKP/26-2 WP(C).No.26950 OF 2020(P)

APPENDIX PETITIONERS'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF SALE DEED NO.2167/16 DATED 3/11/2016 EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1069/2017 EXECUTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 18/5/2017.

EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF OBJECTION DATED 3/7/2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL.

EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TRIBUNAL IN J1/850/17/K.DIS. DATED 2/8/2017.

RESPONDENTS'S EXHIBITS: NIL

TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE