The court also fined the petitioner for making frivolous appeal against his mother.
The Delhi High Court has slapped a cost of Rs 1 lakh on a man for filing a frivolous appeal against his mother in a property dispute, saying it was classic case of an aged parent being harassed by their children and a copy of the storyline of recent Bollywood movie "102 Not Out".
The court dismissed the appeal against a trial court order as completely frivolous, meritless and an abuse of the process of law and directed the man to pay the amount to his mother within six weeks.
"The present is a classic case of aged parent/mother being harassed by her children for property. Obviously, it is not unexpected any longer in this age that we are living in, and which is vividly depicted in a Hindi movie '102 Not Out', starring Amitabh Bachchan and Rishi Kapoor. Obviously this case is nothing else but a copy of the movie '102 Not Out'," Justice Valmiki J Mehta said.
In the suit, the widow has two children -- a son and a daughter. The daughter had filed a partition suit of their Chitranjan Park property in the national capital which was supported by mother. In May, the trial court decreed the suit and the son challenged it in the high court.
The high court said it failed to understand as to how a son could dispute the grant of half ownership rights in a property by the husband to his wife.
"Even on merits, I fail to understand as to how a son can dispute the grant of half ownership rights in a property by the husband to his wife, because even for the sake of argument we take that the suit property was allotted to the husband because of being a displaced person on account of his having left a property in east Pakistan, surely a husband can take an ownership of a property jointly in his name with his wife and which will have the effect that he having gifted his half ownership rights in the suit property to his wife in this case," it said.
The court said there does not arise any issue of the son challenging the lease deed, once the father in his life time got the lease deed executed jointly in his favour and his wife.
The court noted that the counsel for the mother stated that the son left no stone unturned to harass and trouble her, and said the court should pass a judgment and clarify the ownership rights otherwise he will keep on harassing her.
The court had also asked the son whether he wanted to press the appeal as the parties could repair their relationship, but he sought for a judgement to be passed.