Read Time: 06 minutes

In a recent decision, a Kerala High Court bench of Justice N Anil Kumar has held that sons-in-law have no legal right in the property of their fathers-in-law. 

The respondent in the appeal, Sri. Hendry Thomas, aged 69 years, filed the original suit before the trial court claiming for permanent injunction interdicting his son in law, the appellant from trespassing into the scheduled property or interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the scheduled property and the house therein or committing any waste therein. 

The son-in-law contended that he had been staying in the property and had obtained the property by virtue of a gift deed, and claimed to have a right to the property as he had married the only daughter of the plaintiff.

He also claimed that he had been practically adopted as a member of the family subsequent to the marriage and said that as he had constructed a building in the property expending his own money and has no other place of abode, he must be allowed to inhabit his father-in-law's property and has a right to the same.

His suit was dismissed by the trial court, and in first appeal, following which he filed a second appeal before the Kerala High Court.

VIEW OF THE COURT 

The Kerala High Court bench dismissed the appeal and upholding the decision of both the trial court and court of first appeal, stated:

"The defendant cannot even make a plea to be in possession of the suit property, as of right. It is a settled principle of law that even a trespasser, who is in established possession of the property, could obtain an injunction. However, the matter would be different if the plaintiff himself was the true owner of the property. The defendant is the son-in-law of the plaintiff. It is rather shameful for him to plead that he had been adopted as a member of the family, subsequent to the marriage with the plaintiff's daughter."

The court then referred to the Supreme Court decision in Nair Service Society Ltd. v. K. C. Alexander and others, where a three judge bench held that a person in possession of the land in the assumed character of owner and exercising peaceably the ordinary rights of ownership has a perfectly good title against all the world but the rightful owner.

Hence, the Kerala High Court observed that the residence of the son-in-law, if any, in the building is only permissive in nature and the son-in-law has no legal right in the property of father-in-law. 

The father-in-law had also raised issues on the character of the son-in-law stating that he is a bad man and he is not on good terms with the members of his family.

The court on this issue stated that under Section 52 of the Indian Evidence Act, a fact pertaining to the character of an individual is not relevant in civil cases. 

Cause Title: Davis Raphel v. Hendry Thomas