In which case did the High Court say that merely being a son is not enough to have rights on father's property?
Son Right on His Father's Property: Patna High Court, while hearing a petition, said that being a son is not the basis for claiming rights on the father's property.
Muskan
Follow Us
Patna High Court, in its decision in a case under the Maintenance and Welfare of Senior Citizens Act-2007, said that based on mere relationship, the son does not have the right to claim residence in the property owned by the father. Chief Justice K. A division bench of Justices Vinod Chandran and Justice Parthasarathy, considering the son's participation in the business, earnings and ability to bear the rent, said that the son, who has forcibly taken possession of the house, will have to pay monthly rent to the elderly parents.
R.P., owner of a guest house. Roy claimed in the court that his youngest son Ravi forcibly occupied three rooms in the guest house. Due to this, they were deprived of both rental income and residential facilities. Following Roy's allegations, the tribunal issued an eviction order against the son, saying the guest house was a leased property of Roy, who is a senior citizen under the law.
The son had appealed against this in the High Court. She argued that Roy had other sources of income. The property belongs to a joint Hindu family. Therefore he also has the right to it. The High Court quashed the tribunal's order for the eviction of the son and sent the matter to the concerned District Magistrate so that he could decide the rent of the rooms occupied by the son. The division bench said that the son would have to make regular payments of rent into the father's account.
The Orissa High Court directed the Chief Secretary of Odisha to issue instructions to all doctors to write medical prescriptions and medico-legal documents. Justice S.K. Panigrahi said that the trend of 'zigzag handwriting' has become fashionable among doctors. It cannot be read by common people or judicial officers. The court gave this direction while disposing of a person's petition for compensation in a snake bite case. Even the court could not read the postmortem report presented in this case. A doctor had to be called to understand this.
