Son-in-law doesn’t have any right over father-in-law’s property: Kerala state supreme court

By – Ricky Anand

Single choose Justice N Anil Kumar obligatory prices whereas dismissing a second attractiveness against the orders of an endeavor court and 1st judicature that had commanded that the in-law has no right to disturb the peaceful possession of the relative-in-law over his building or property.
The state supreme court ascertained that the relative-in-law is paying tax on the property and building and has been residing within the same. The Court additionally found it tough to carry that the litigator may be a member of the family.
“The litigator is that the in-law of the litigator. it’s rather shameful for him to plead that he had been adopted as a member of the family, following the wedding with the plaintiff’s female offspring.”
The Court adverted to the choice of the Supreme Court in Nair Service Society Ltd. v. kHz Alexander and Ors. that reiterated the principle that possession is nice against just about actuality owner.
“The rightful owner(father-in-law) filed a suit for injunction restraining him from stepping into the property. The residence of the defendant(the appellant’s son-in-law), if any, within the plaint schedule building is barely permissive in nature. The litigator cannot contend that he’s in legal possession of the suit property or the building”, the order declared.
The in-law had approached the state supreme court against the orders of lower courts that had granted an injunction to the relative-in-law, interdicting the in-law from intrusive into the plaint schedule property or busy together with his peaceful possession and delight of the same property.
However, it opined that it’s not necessary to make a decision on the validity of a gift deed dead by the church in favor of the litigator. The suit for injunction filed by the litigator deserves to be thought of on the strength of established possession of the litigator over the suit property and therefore the building, the Court same.
The Court rejected the allegations created against the father-in-law’s character as Section fifty-two of the Indian proof Act provides that in civil cases, a truth touching on the character of a private isn’t relevant.

“A civil case needs to be set supported the matter in issue between the parties and not supported the current or last character of the parties.