NEW DELHI: In a property dispute between a mother and her son, the Supreme Court on Wednesday reminded the son of the importance of a mother in Hinduism and asked him to apologise to his mother and seek her forgiveness.
“You should go and touch your mother’s feet and apologise. Seek apology for all your sins,” said a Bench of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice N Kotiswar Singh.
Justice Sharma told the son’s counsel, “Isn’t what the son doing is wrong? We are asking son to go back to mother, touch her, feel and apologise and take her blessings.”
The Supreme Court made these observations after being convinced that the son had tried to grab his parents’ property.
Justice Sharma reminded the son of the importance of a mother in Hinduism and asked him to apologise to her.
The mother and her husband are the sole owners of the property. Out of love and affection, they had permitted their son and daughter-in-law to occupy the first floor on a permissive basis as licensees, without rent. The son and his wife allegedly harassed the parents and pressured them to transfer the property in their names.
The parents alleged that the son and his wife claimed ownership of the property on the basis of fabricated documents. The parents subsequently published a public notice in a newspaper severing all relations with them, lodged an FIR, terminated the licence through a notice and directed them to vacate the flat. They then filed a suit seeking possession, a permanent injunction and recovery of damages.
The trial court held that the parents were the sole owners of the property and that the son and his wife were merely licensees whose licence had been validly terminated. It directed them to vacate the first floor. The Delhi High Court, on April 17, upheld the trial court’s order.
Challenging the High Court order, the son approached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court also dismissed the son’s SLP and observed that the parents had allowed their son to occupy the property out of love and affection, but he had allegedly tried to become its owner by using fake documents. Such conduct, the court said, could not be protected.
The top court directed the son to vacate the first floor within 60 days and pay damages.