Authored By: Rati Agrawal
Citation: [2021 (5) KHC 443]
Date of Judgement: September 6, 2021
Bench: Justice N Anil Kumar
Court: High Court of Kerala
"Even though he financed its construction, the Kerela High Court has held that a son-in-law has no legal title to his father-in-law’s structure."
INTRODUCTION
The Kerala High Court's Justice N Anil Kumar decided that sons-in-law had no legal claim to their father-in-law's property. Davis Raphel of Taliparamba, Kannur, appealed the Sub Court of Payyannur's decision dismissing his claim to his father-in-law Hendry Thomas' property. While rejecting the case, Justice N Anil Kumar issued the decision.
The father-in-law filed a permanent injunction with the trial court, demanding that Davis refrain from trespassing on his property or interfering with his peaceful ownership and enjoyment of the property and house. Hendry claimed to have obtained the land through a donation agreement signed on behalf of and for St Paul's church in Thrichambaram by Fr. James Nasrath. He claims to have built a concrete house with his own money and that he and his family are presently residing there. His son-in-law, he maintained, had no legal title to the land.
EXPLANATION
The plaintiff (respondent herein) filed an original suit in the trial court seeking a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendant (his son-in-law) from trespassing into the plaint schedule property or interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, which the plaintiff owns by virtue of a gift deed. The plaintiff's wife and daughter had also sought a restraining order against the defendant. Despite the fact that the cases had been settled, the defendant's behavior became unacceptable, causing the plaintiff to seek a permanent facially unconstitutional injunction barring him from entering the country.
The defendant (appellant herein) stated that he had married the plaintiff's sole daughter and thus had been essentially adopted as a member of the family following the marriage, despite the fact that he had no legal title to the property. He claimed that he had a legal right to dwell in the property on these grounds. The trial court, on the other hand, found that the plaintiff is the owner and occupier of the plaint schedule property and that the plaintiff's son-in-law has no authority to interfere with the plaintiff's possession of the plaint schedule building. Despite the fact that an appeal had been filed, the first appellate court found that the defendant had no authority to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession of the plaint schedule building. The appeal was dismissed as a consequence. The defendant, unhappy, files a routine second appeal with the High Court.
The court's main concern was whether a son-in-law had any legal rights to his father-in-property laws and building. The plaintiff was paying property and building taxes, according to the court. He had also been residing in the plaint schedule building. It was also discovered that proving that the defendant is a family member proved challenging. The plaintiff's family, according to the court, consists of his wife and daughter.
As a consequence, after the plaintiff gets possession of the property, the son-in-law cannot argue that he was adopted as a family member as a result of his marriage to the plaintiff's daughter and so has a title to the property. The court's main concern was whether a son-in-law had any legal rights over his father-in-property laws and structure. The plaintiff paid property and building taxes, according to the court. He, too, was a resident of the plaint schedule building. It was also discovered that establishing that the defendant is a family member is challenging. His wife and daughter, according to the court, make up the plaintiff's family.
As a result, after the plaintiff obtains possession of the property, the son-in-law cannot argue that he was adopted as a member of the family as a result of his marriage to the plaintiff's daughter and so has a title to the property. The son-in-residence law is in the plaint schedule building if it is just permissive in character, it was reaffirmed. As a consequence, even though he paid for the building's construction, the court held that the son-in-law had no legal title to his father-in-law’s building.
PRECEDENT MENTIONED CASE LAW
Nair Service Society Ltd. v. K.C.Alexander and others [AIR 1968 SC 1165]
In this case, The Supreme Court's Three-Judge Bench reaffirmed the notion that possession is valid against anyone to save the genuine owner. A person in possession of land in the supposed character of the owner and exercising peaceably the regular rights of ownership has a perfectly valid title against everyone save the genuine owner, according to the dicta given out in the aforementioned case. The legitimate owner filed an injunction against him, preventing him from entering the land. The defendant's residency in the plaint schedule building, if any, is purely permitted in character. The defendant cannot claim that he is the lawful owner of the suit property or the structure. As previously stated, both courts below have presented compelling reasons for concluding that the plaintiff's injunction complaint was maintainable without further relief.
A plaintiff is a man of terrible character, according to learned counsel for the appellant, and he does not get along with his family members. A fact about an individual's character is not relevant in civil disputes, according to Section 52 of the Indian Evidence Act . It establishes the notion that a party's character cannot be used as evidence to show that the action ascribed to him is neither likely nor improbable. The irrelevance stems from the fact that a civil action must be determined on the merits of the dispute between the parties, not on the parties' current or former character.
On behalf of the respondent, it has been adamantly argued that there was no issue of law in this appeal, much less any serious matter of law sufficient to warrant interference in the second appeal. In a second appeal, the same results are being challenged. To be a question of law in a case, there must first be a foundation for it laid out in the pleadings, and the question must arise from credible findings of fact reached by Courts of facts, and it must be necessary to resolve that question of law in order to reach a just and proper conclusion to the case.
CONCLUSION
Even if the assessment of evidence is inaccurate and the finding of fact is incorrect, a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property on the date of the action is not subject to dispute in the second appeal. As a result, this Second Appeal may be rejected. For the reasons stated above, this Court finds no error in the first appeal court's judgement upholding the trial court's judgement and decree by decreeing the complaint about injunction simpliciter. As a result, this RSA is rejected without prejudice. If there are any pending applications, they will be closed.
REFERENCES
1. KUMAR, A., 2021. Son-in-Law Has no Legal Right in Father-In-Law's Property: Kerala High Court [READ JUDGEMENT]. [online] Lawstreet.co. Available at: <https://lawstreet.co/judiciary/son-in-law-has-legal-father-in-law-property-kerala-hc> [Accessed 23 December 2021].
2. HIDAYATULLAH, M., n.d. Nair Service Society Ltd. Vs Rev. Father K. C. Alexander & Ors.. [online] Legal Authority. Available at: <https://www.legalauthority.in/judgement/nair-service-society-ltd-vs-rev-father-k-c-alexander-ors-35619> [Accessed 23 December 2021]
Comments