Movies are no longer reel; they are becoming real
Justice Valmiki J Mehta recently observed that the facts of a property dispute case between a mother and her son is ‘is nothing else but a copy of the Movie ‘102 Not Out’.
The Delhi High Court, dismissing an appeal filed by a son against his mother in a property dispute matter, observed that it is a classic case of aged parent/mother being harassed by her children for properties.
The present is a classic case of aged parent/mother being harassed by her children for properties. 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’. Obviously this case is nothing else but a copy of the Movie ‘102 Not Out’, Justice Mehta observed while dismissing the appeal.
The Court also imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on the son for filing the appeal, which according to the court, is ‘completely frivolous, meritless and an abuse of the process of law’.
This mother, involved in the case, have two children, both grown-ups. The daughter filed a partition suit, and mother, as a defendant in the case, supported it. The trial court decreed the suit. The son, who had contested the suit, approached the high court.
The high court observed that in the written statement filed by aged mother, she had levelled grave charges of her mistreatment by her son.
“Even on merits, I fail to understand as to how a son can dispute the grant of half ownership rights in a property by the husband to his wife because even for the sake of argument we take that the suit property was allotted to the husband Sh. 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 an ownership of a property jointly in his name with his wife and which will have the effect that he having gifted his half ownership rights in the suit property to his wife Smt. Sudha Pal in this case,” the court observed.
Although the court enquired whether appeal should be pressed, the counsel who appeared for the son, on instructions submitted that he is not withdrawing it. The counsel appearing for the mother told the court that the son has left no stone unturned to harass and trouble his aged mother and that the court should pass a judgment and clarify the ownership rights, otherwise he would keep on harassing his aged mother.
Rejecting all contentions in the appeal, the court dismissed the appeal with costs of Rs 1 lakh to be paid by the son to his mother within six weeks.