BINDU W/O HARIKRISHNAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.12331 of 2016 is contesting respondent No.4 in W.P.(C)No.3377 of 2016. Contesting respondents 3 and 4 in W.P.(C)No.12331 of 2016 are the petitioners in W.P. (C)No.3377 of 2016, in which contesting respondent No.4 therein is the writ petitioner in W.P.(C)No.12331 of 2016. As the matters are interrelated and as the same order has been impugned in both these writ petitions, these two cases are disposed of on the basis of this common judgment.

(2.) The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.12331 of 2016, viz., Sri.Ramakrishna Kurup, now aged 90 years had settled his landed property coming to 68 cents and the residential house situated thereon, in favour of his son Sri.Sajeev Kumar as per Ext.P1 settlement deed No.427/2013 dated 13.2013 which was duly registered with the S.R.O. concerned. Sri.Sajeev Kumar (son of the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.12331 of 2016) had married Smt.Bindu, who is contesting respondent No.3 in W.P.(C)No.12331 of 2016 and the 1st petitioner in W.P.(C)No.3377 of 2016. It appears that the father, son and daughter-in-law had stayed together in the above said residential house. Later Sri.Sajeev Kumar had died on 18.9.2013 and she had subsequently re-married Sri.Harikrishnan, who is contesting respondent No.4 in W.P. (C)No.12331 of 2016 as well as the 2nd petitioner in W.P.(C)No.3377 of 2016. According to the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.12331 of 2016, his life became miserable due to the mistreatment that he had to suffer from his former daughter-in-law and her new husband and therefore he had no other way but to seek refuge in the house of his daughter, that he had also come to know that the above said property covered by the said settlement deed was mutated in the name of Smt.Bindu, on her application filed before the competent Village Officer concerned. In view of the above said aspects, the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.12331 of 2016 had filed application dated 8.12014, before the 2nd respondent Tribunal under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (a copy of the said application has been produced as Ext.P5 in W.P.(C)No.3377 of 2016 and Ext.P2 in W.P. (C)No.12331 of 2016). In the said application, the above said former daughter-in-law and her husband were arrayed as respondents therein. After hearing both sides the Tribunal (presided over by the R.D.O.) had passed the impugned order dated 16.9.2015, thereby it was ordered that the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.12331 of 2016 will have all the rights in the above said property covered by the settlement deed, including the right to live there freely and peacefully and to enjoy the income and usufructs from the said property, as reiterated in the said settlement deed and had also directed the competent revenue officials concerned to re-examine the matter relating to the mutation that was earlier made in respect of the above property in favour of the former daughter-in-law. In this context it is relevant to note that as per the above said settlement deed, the father had all the rights to live peacefully in the said property and to take income and usufructs from the said property and he had also the life interest in that property and after the life time of the father, the son will have the full right over the property. However as per the said settlement deed the father had permitted the son to effect mutation. A copy of the above said order dated 16.9.2015 rendered by the Tribunal (presided over by the R.D.O.) has been produced as Ext.P7 in W.P. (C)No.3377 of 2016 and Ext.P3 in W.P.(C)No.12331 of 2016.

(3.) The former daughter-in-law and her husband were aggrieved by the said order of the R.D.O./the Tribunal to the extent it directed the competent revenue authorities to re-examine the matters relating to mutation which was earlier made in favour of the daughter- in-law. The said parties (petitioners in W.P.(C)No.3377 of 2016) had filed an appeal in terms of Section 16 of the above said Act before the appellate Tribunal (presided over by the Collector). So also the father was aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal to the extent it denied his prayers for cancellation of the settlement deed and for eviction of the contesting respondents in the application from the said property. Thus it appears that the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.3377 of 2016 had filed appeal dated 24.10.2015 before the appellate Tribunal and the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.12331 of 2016 had filed appeal dated 16.11.2015 before the appellate Tribunal.