Case Title: Davis Raphel v. Hendry Thomas, Kerala High Court
RSA NO. 418 OF 2019, Dated 06.09.2021
Facts:
- The Plaintiff filed original suit in the trial court claiming from permanent injunction interdicting the Defendants who is son-in-law of the Plaintiff from trespassing into the plant schedule property or interfering with the Plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
- The property belonged to the Plaintiff by virtue of a gift deed. According to him, he constructed a concrete house spending his own funds and he is residing therein with his family.
- The Defendant has filed the WS refuting the claim of the Plaintiff. According to him, the title of the suit property is itself questionable as the alleged gift deed was executed by the church authorities of the family. He maintained that he has the right to reside in the house because of the facts that he married to the Plaintiff’s only daughter and practically adopted as a member of the family. Further he has constructed a building in the property spending his own expenditure and he has no other place to abode. The Defendant further contend that the Plaintiff’s wife filed a case against the Defendant for a protection order, which was settled between the parties, agreeing to reside together in the property.
Issue:
Whether a son in law can claim any legal right in his father in law’s property and building?
Findings of the Court:
The trial court and the first appellant court held that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the property, and the Defendant has no legal right to disturb the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. Moreover, the award passed in for residing together in the property do not create any interest in the property
The second appellant court held that it is difficult to hold that the Defendant is the member of the property. It is further submitted that settlement in the above filed case by the Plaintiff’s wife was an order to maintain among the family members of the family and it would not ensure any benefit to the Defendant.
The same was resisted by the Defendant pointing out the facts that he has constructed the building a loan. But the court held that merely remitting the amount, he could not claim any independent right over the building to the detriment of the true owner.
It is settled principal of law that even a trespasser, who is in established possession of the property cannot obtain an injunction.
Therefore, it was held that when the Plaintiff is possession of the suit property, the son-in-law cannot plead that he has been adopted as a member of the family, subsequent to the marriage with the Plaintiff’s daughter, even if he has spent an amount for construction of the building.
Hence, the court does not find any error in the judgment of first appellant court in confirming the judgment and the decree of the trial court by decreeing the suit for injunction.
You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us and Call us