Whether son-in-law can claim legal rights in the immovable property of the father-in-law?

 Does a son-in-law have any legal right in his

father-in-law's property and building? Admittedly, the plaint

schedule property was gifted in favour of the plaintiff by the

church authorities by virtue of Ext.A1 Gift Deed. The plaintiff

is paying tax to the property by virtue of Ext.A2. He is also

paying tax to the building. Exts.A3 to A9 would show that he

has been residing in the plaint schedule building. It is difficult

to hold that the defendant is a member of the family. The

family of the plaintiff consists of his wife and daughter. The

plaintiff has not filed any suit against his own daughter.

However, he does not want the defendant to stay along with

him. The plaintiff 's wife filed M.C.No.14/2012 against the

defendant for a protection order and at the instigation of the

defendant, the daughter of the plaintiff filed another

M.C.No.19/2012 against the plaintiff. Later, by Exts.B2 and

B4 awards, the cases were settled by way of compromise in

order to maintain harmony among the members of the family.

The settlement in the said cases would not enure any benefit to

the defendant. {Para 14}

15. Since the behaviour of the defendant became

intolerable, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking a permanent

prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from entering into

the plaint schedule property and building. This was resisted by

the defendant pointing out the fact that he had constructed the

building after availing a loan. He had also produced certain

receipts allegedly issued in his favour by Taliparamba Service

Co-operative Bank to show that housing loan was cleared by

him. Exts.B5(a) to B5(h) receipts would show that the

Thaliparamba Service Co-operative Bank issued receipts in the

name of the plaintiff. Merely because the defendant remitted

the amount, he could not claim any independent right over the

building to the detriment of the true owner.

16. In the present case, the possession of the

plaintiff was upheld by the two courts below concurrently.

The defendant cannot even make a plea to be in possession of

the suit property, as of right. It is a settled principle of law

that even a trespasser, who is in established possession of the

property, could obtain an injunction. However, the matter

would be different if the plaintiff himself is the true owner of

the property. The defendant is the son-in-law of the plaintiff.

It is rather shameful for him to plead that he had been

adopted as a member of the family, subsequent to the

marriage with the plaintiff's daughter. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR

 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021 

RSA NO. 418 OF 2019

DAVIS RAPHEL Vs  HENDRY THOMAS,

Coram: N.ANIL KUMAR

Print Page

Whether mother in law can recover money from son in law before family court?

Adjudication of matrimonial disputes in a congenial atmosphere is the function of the Family Court. No doubt, a broad and liberal approach is required in determining the jurisdiction of the Family Court. But, it does not mean that, the Family Court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate matters not even remotely connected with marriage and marital relationship. Exclusion of jurisdiction of civil courts cannot be readily inferred. The expression "in circumstances arising out of a marital relationship" in Clause (d) of the explanation to Section 7(1) of the Act, denotes such circumstances surrounding, preceding and closely following a marital relationship, that is, the principal event of marriage and the eventualities surrounding the same. The "circumstances" must have a direct bearing on marriage. Prime consideration should be as to whether the cause of the lis has got any bearing with marital relationship. If the cause of action is emerging out of any circumstances related to matrimonial relationship and the same could not have existed independently, then the suit can be maintained before the Family Court, and it will fall under Clause (d) of the explanation to Section 7(1) of the Act. It is not necessary that, parties to a suit or proceeding under that clause, shall be parties to a marriage.

23. On an analysis of the facts of the present case on the basis of the parameters stated above, it is evident that the foundation of the claim for money made by the appellant against her daughter and son-in-law is not any circumstance arising out of a marital relationship. The amount was allegedly given by her to the respondents purely on account of her confidence and faith in them. There is no plea, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, that she gave the money at the instance of her husband or due to the pressure or influence made on her by her husband. The transaction between the appellant and the respondents has no connection with her marital relationship with her husband. The cause of action for the claim of money made by the appellant does not relate to the matrimonial relationship between her and her husband. The cause of action for realisation of money from the respondents would exist independently. The jurisdiction conferred on the Family Court is settlement of issues arising out of matrimonial causes. The dispute in the instant case is purely a civil dispute which one could agitate and seek relief from an ordinary civil court. The dispute is not one arising out of any marital relationship.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Mat. Appeal No. 541 of 2016

Decided On: 09.11.2018

 Vijayalakshmy Vs.  P.K. Jayashree and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

C.K. Abdul Rehim and R. Narayana Pisharadi, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2019 Kerala 53

Print Page

Whether father can enter into agreement of sale in respect of ancestral property?

Moreover, what holds good in respect of the family settlement, holds good even moreso with regard to an agreement of sale, i.e. that an agreement of sale also could not have been entered into by Rohtash if the property was ancestral property in his hands, his son and the other two children having acquired a right in such property by birth.Of course, if due consideration was received by Rohtash, in lieu of such property, then such consideration may have been deemed to be ancestral property, provided the ancestral land was sold for the benefit of his family.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

RSA-1725-2016 (O&M)

Decided On: 02.06.2017

 Amrit Lal Vs.Savitri and Ors.

Print Page

Whether son in law can not claim that licence granted to him by his father in law has become irrevocable?

For availing the protection by invoking the provision of clause (b) Section 60, it must be shown that the execution of a work of permanent nature had been done by the licensee acting upon the licence. The work must be of a permanent character and the licensee must have incurred expenses in the execution. The expression 'acting upon the licence is of great significance in deciding the question of irrevocability of a licence under Section 60(b) of the Act. This Rule of irrevocability is, in fact, based on the principle of an implied grant arising from the conduct of the licensor which estops him from claiming his right of revocation.

In the present case, there is no such specific pleading that renovation work was made by the defendant acting upon the licence and in pursuance of the licence granted by the plaintiff. The defendant claims to have been gifted with the land and thus is in possession on his own right. So, the present stand as regards the irrevocability of the licence is in conflict with the main plea. He never comes forward in so claiming as a licensee nor has placed in the courts below that instead of the claim of relationship as landlord and tenant, there was the relationship of licensor and licensee between the plaintiff and the defendant. Moreover two important factual aspects as placed by the defendant being taken for consideration, those prevent with full force, the attractibility of the provisions of Section 60 (b) of Easements Act. The first one is that of leaving of one room at the desire of plaintiff without any demur and the next one is that of demand of the money spent after the renovation. In view of the relationship between the parties s father-in-law and son-in-law, even accepting for a moment that some renovation work was done by the defendant and in view the very case of the defendant as aforestated, the present submission to thwart the suit of the plaintiff banking upon the provision of Section 60(b) of the Easements Act falls flat.

Equivalent Citation: AIR2016Ori1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA

RSA No. 9 of 2015

Decided On: 12.08.2015

Appellants: Mohammed Jamsed
Vs.
Respondent: Sk. Altab

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:D. Dash, J.

Print Page