Relief for 68-year-old mother as court refuses to evict her from family house

Mumbai: The city civil court recently protected a 68-year-old woman whose three sons wanted to evict her from their house

Mumbai: The city civil court recently protected a 68-year-old woman whose three sons wanted to evict her from their house. The woman is already fighting a case of domestic violence against her three sons who refused to take care of her.

Relief for 68-year-old mother as court refuses to evict her from family house

The three brothers, who reside in Sakinaka, had claimed that the house belonged to their partnership firm and their mother was trying to sell it off as per the say of their relatives. The brothers claimed that it was their self-acquired property and they were owners of the land as well.

They said it was originally owned by one Khot family from whom the brothers claimed to have purchased the land and constructed the structure thereon and they are doing business in a partnership which they entered into in 2012. They claimed that in April 2013 their mother threatened to evict them from the house and hence approached the court for protection and a declaration that she had no right over the property.

The mother, however, filed a counter stating that the property was originally acquired by her husband on April 23, 1983, and the sale deed was registered in March 1987. The mother also claimed that it was her husband who started their family business and not her sons. She further stated that when the 10,000-square-feet house was constructed, their elder son had not even completed 20 years of age.

She further claimed that after the death of her husband in 2011, she was in the use of the property and her sons under the guise of managing the property, illegally trespassed into it and would get right over and possession of the property only after her death.

The mother also pointed out that her sons had forged a declaration of her daughter, relinquishing her right in the property for which her daughter has filed a criminal case against her brothers.

The court after hearing both sides observed that the business was established by the husband of the elderly woman in the name of their daughter and the brothers claimed that it was their sister who had incited their mother and at her instance, their mother was obstructing their way to take over possession of the property.

“It is also not the contention of the plaintiffs that due to love and affection towards their sister, the plaintiffs have selected her name for their business. Therefore, it appears that this business must have been started by the plaintiff’s father due to the love and affection towards the daughter.,” said the court.

The court noted that the property in question and their common house in Sakinaka were purchased through the partnership which was started by the father of the plaintiffs. The court relied upon the licence issued by the municipal corporation which was issued in 1992 in the name of their father.

The court also noted that since the property was acquired through a partnership firm, the sons failed to state how shares in the property were distributed and settled after the death of their father, who was also a partner in the firm.

Hence, the court said, the sons failed to prove that their mother had no claim or interest in the said property and refused to restrain the mother against their claim over the property.