Dismissing a man’s claim seeking ownership of his parents’ property, the Delhi High Court observed that it was a classic case of an aged mother being harassed by her children and a copy of the recent movie ‘102 Not Out’.
“Obviously, it is not unexpected any longer in this age that we are living in, and which is vividly depicted in a Hindi movie ‘102 Not Out’… This case is nothing but a copy of the movie,” said Justice Valmiki J Mehta.
Justice Mehta further said that the appeal filed by the son against his mother is “completely frivolous and an abuse of the process of law”, and is “dismissed”. The court also imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on the son, which shall be paid to his mother within six weeks.
While deciding the case, Justice Mehta observed that the woman, in her written statement, had levelled grave charges of her mistreatment by her son.
“Even on merit, I fail to understand how a son can dispute the grant of half ownership rights in a property by the husband to his wife… Even for the sake of argument, we take that the suit property was allotted to the husband, Shayam Sunder Pal, because of being a displaced person on account of his having left a property in East Pakistan. Surely a husband can take ownership of a property jointly in his name with his wife, which will have the effect of he having gifted his half ownership rights in the suit property to his wife, Sudha Pal, in this case,” the court observed.
The woman has two children. The daughter filed a partition suit before a Delhi court to divide the property. The mother, a defendant in the case, supported it. The trial court, in May 2018, decreed the suit. The son, who had contested the suit, approached the HC against the trial court order.
Taking note of the contention that the mother was harassed, the High Court enquired if the appeal should be pressed. The counsel who appeared for the son, submitted that he is not withdrawing it and invites judgment.
The mother’s counsel told the court that the son has left no stone unturned to harass and trouble her. The counsel added that the court should pass judgment and clarify the ownership rights, else he would keep harassing his aged mother.
Agreeing with the mother’s submission, the bench said, “All arguments urged on behalf of the son to question the 50% ownership of the mother are without any basis and, therefore, rejected.”