High Court Upholds Older Citizen’s Right Over Property
The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that a retired father-in-law has the right to evict his son-in-law from his property. The court upheld the order of the writ court, emphasizing that citizens have a right to reclaim their property for financial and personal needs.
Background of the Case
The appellant, the son-in-law of Respondent No.3, lived in his father-in-law’s house. His wife (the daughter of Respondent No.3) had passed away. He claimed that he contributed ₹1,00,000 towards the construction and had adverse possession over the property. However, he failed to present any legal proof supporting his claim.
The house was purchased by the father-in-law in 2007. The older citizen, a retired BHEL employee, needed the property to generate income to support his sick wife and children.
Court’s Observations
The son-in-law argued that he did not fall under the definition of “children” or “relative” under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Act, 2007. He contended that he could not be evicted under this Act.
The High Court ruled that:
Definition of “Children” Is Not Comprehensive: By implication, if a father gives a house to his daughter, this definition includes the son-in-law after her death.
Citizens Have a Right to Peaceful
Possession: The property owner, an citizen, had a bona fide need for the house. The law allows eviction if the older citizen proves the necessity.
No Legal Rights Over the Property: The appellant failed to establish ownership or legal rights to remain in the house.
Final Judgment
The court ruled that the son-in-law had to vacate the property within 30 days. If he failed to comply, the authorities directed the SHO to remove his belongings and hand over the property to his father-in-law.
