[ 677 ]
IN THE TRIBUNAL FOR MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND
SENIOR CITIZENS (NORTH) AT PUDUCHERRY
Present : Thiru ARJUN RAMAKRISHNAN,
Presiding Officer (Tribunal-I).
MWPSC No. 37/2023/2096
Dated at Puducherry on this 3rd day of September 2024
Tmt. Vedavalli,
W/o. Balakrishnan,
No. 18, Vinayagar Koil Street,
Indira Nagar,
Sokkanathanpet,
Puducherry-605 009.
. .
Petitioner
Vs.
1. Tmt. Karpukkarasi,
No. 3, 4th Cross, Manicka Chettiyar Nagar,
Shanmugapuram,
Puducherry-605 009.
Registered with the Registrar
of Newspapers for India
under No. 10410
La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
PART - I
EXTRAORDINAIRE
EXTRAORDINARY
Publiée par
Published by
Autorité
Authority
2024 }
| 3 {
No.
121
Poudouchéry
Mardi
3
Septembre
2024 (12 Bhadra 1946)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
3rd
September
2024
678
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[ PART-I
678
2. Tmt. Mangayarkarasi,
No. 9, Muslim Kallarai Street,
Nethaji Nagar-II,
Ouppalam,
Puducherry-605 001.
3. Thiru Manimaran,
No. 13, Sri Sai Garden,
Near Kalki Koil,
Poothurai Road,
Muthiraiyarpalayam,
Puducherry-605 010.
4. Tmt. Ilavarasi,
No. 10, Muslim Kallarai Street,
Nethaji Nagar-II,
Ouppalam,
Puducherry-605 001.
5. Thiru Thamizhmaran,
2nd Main Road,
Manicka Chettiyar Nagar,
Shanmugapuram,
Puducherry-605 009.
. .
Respondents.
PROCEEDINGS
This petition is submitted by the Petitioner, Vedavalli, wife of Balakrishnan,
residing at No. 18, Vinayagar Koil Street, Indira Nagar, Sokkanathanpet,
Puducherry-605 009, under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Act, 2007 and the rules framed thereunder.
PETITIONER’S PLEA
2. The Petitioner has approached this Tribunal seeking maintenance,
including food, clothing, medical expenses and the return of her LGR Patta, taken
by her son (the 3rd Respondent), as well as the return of the key to the 1st Floor
from her son (the 5th Respondent).
CONCILIATION
3. Based on the petition filed, the Petitioner and Respondents were referred
to Conciliation Officers. However, conciliation efforts failed to settle the dispute
amicably. Consequently, this Tribunal proceeded with further hearings.
SUMMONS AND APPEARANCES
4. Notices were issued to both the Petitioner and Respondents, directing
their appearance before the Tribunal. After several hearings, the parties appeared
for the final hearing on 13-08-2024.
GIST OF THE PETITIONER’S STATEMENT
5. The Petitioner Vedavalli, stated that her elder son (3rd Respondent) took
possession of the LGR Patta of her residence at Sokkanathanpet, Puducherry and
has refused to return it. She claims, she requires maintenance, including food,
shelter and medical expenses. The Petitioner also seeks protection and the return
of the key to the 1st Floor of her house, which is being withheld by her younger son
PART-I ]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
679
(5th Respondent). The Petitioner states that her three daughters are married and
living with their in-laws. She emphasizes that the 1st Floor of her house has been
locked for the past four years, with the 5th Respondent holding the key and the
3rd Respondent holding the property documents. The Petitioner further asserts that
when she asked the 3rd Respondent to take care of her, he refused. Additionally,
the Petitioner stated that when she sought food and shelter from the
5th Respondent, he refused and told her to return to her own house or face
hardship. Consequently, she wishes to rent out the 1st Floor.
RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS
6. The 3rd Respondent Thiru Manimaran acknowledges the fact of having
vacated the Petitioner’s house to avoid conflict and asserts that he resides
separately in Kalki Nagar. He contends that the 4th Respondent and others are
fabricating claims and attempting to take over the house, despite all settlements
having been finalized after their father’s death. According to him, the Petitioner is
being instigated by her daughters, who are seeking to gain control of the property.
He informs the Tribunal that the Petitioner is not seeking maintenance but, is
requesting only the key to the 1st Floor of the house.
7. The 4th Respondent Tmt. Ilavarasi submits that following their father’s
death, the three daughters each received
5 lakh in cash, while the sons took
control of the vineyard and other properties. She disputes the 5th Respondent’s
claim of being unaware of the possessor of the impugned property (Petitioner’s
Residence) documents, suggesting that the 5th Respondent is not being truthful.
The 4th Respondent also states that the Petitioner lives alone in the house and it
is too small to accommodate her, indicating no interest in taking or selling the
impugned property.
8. The 5th Respondent states that he has fully renovated the 1st Floor
and painted the Ground Floor six months ago. He expresses his willingness to pay
rent for the 1st Floor but, claims that the Petitioner refused, stating that she only
wants the 1st Floor itself. Residing separately in Shanmugapuram, Puducherry,
he alleges that a third party is instigating the Petitioner to gain access to the 1st
Floor and possibly sell the property. He further alleges that the Settlement
Tahsildar-II issued an improper order for the handover of the property documents
and key without conducting a proper inquiry, leaving him with no alternative but,
to file the suit. The 5th Respondent contends that the Petitioner’s daughters are
solely interested in taking control of the house and have harassed the elder son,
leading him to move out of the Ground Floor to a separate residence in May 2020.
The 5th Respondent also stated that he moved out of the 1st Floor of the impugned
property to a rented house in 2022.
9. The 5th Respondent, along with the 3rd Respondent, offered to pay
7,000 per month as maintenance to the Petitioner but, expressed concerns that
the Petitioner might bring others into the house or attempt to sell the impugned
property.
10. The 3rd and 5th Respondent’s Counsel states that the 5th Respondent
has filed a suit in the Civil Court to obtain an injunction to prevent any disturbance
to his peaceful possession of the impugned property. Additionally, he emphasizes
that the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Respondents are focused on selling the LGR Patta property
to a third party.
680
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[ PART-I
680
TRIBUNALS OBSERVATION AND ORDER
(a) The Tribunal observes that the Petitioner has been unable to secure
the key to the 1st Floor of her house, which she wishes to rent out
to derive her livelihood.
(b) The Petitioner’s attempts to seek accommodation with and
maintenance from her children have been rejected, indicating a need
for a solution that allows her to secure her own means of support.
(c) The Tribunal is of the view that the concerns expressed by the
3rd and 5th Respondents regarding the potential sale of the property
by the Petitioner and the involvement of third parties, are largely
without basis, as the Petitioner resides in the property which is an
LGR Patta site issued by the Government in the name of herself and
her deceased husband and she would have nowhere to go in the event
of a sale of the property, her daughters (1st, 2nd and 4th Respondents)
not being in a position to accommodate or maintain her.
(d) The Tribunal is also of the view that the suit filed by the 5th Respondent
before the Civil Court seeking injunction against disturbing his
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, is largely
frivolous in nature, as the 5th Respondent is residing separately,
having no sole rights of ownership, title or possession to the suit
property, and the Petitioner is staying alone in the suit property, being
an LGR Patta site issued by the Government to herself and her
deceased husband.
(e) As the parties have approached the Directorate of Survey and Land
Records regarding the documents to the property, and the proceedings
thereon are ongoing, the Tribunal is of the view that no interference
is warranted in the matter of the documents in respect of the property.
ORDER
(i) The 5th Respondent is directed to handover the key of the 1st Floor
of the property to the Petitioner, as she is entitled and at liberty to
rent out portion of the impugned property (Petitioner’s Residence)
at Sokkanathanpet, Puducherry to secure her livelihood. Rather than
leave the Petitioner to the mercy of the 3rd and 5th Respondents by
receiving a monthly maintenance from them, the Petitioner may live
in more dignity and freedom by earning an income from renting out a
portion of the property.
(ii) The Respondents are directed to ensure that they do not disrupt the
Petitioner's peaceful possession of the impugned property in entirety.
In the event of any threat or disturbance to the peaceful and dignified
life of the Petitioner by any of the Respondents, the matter may be
reported to Police who shall take action as per law against the
offenders.
(iii) A copy of this order shall be sent to the Director of Survey and Land
Records in view of the proceedings pending at that forum in relation
to the property, and this order shall be taken into cognisance in the
disposal of the said proceedings to the extent possible for ensuring
justice and welfare of the Petitioner herein.
PART-I ]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
681
(iv) The 5th Respondent shall handover the key to 1st Floor of the case
property (Petitioner’s residence) to the Petitioner at 10.00 a.m. on
06-09-2024 at the Petitioner’s residence in the presence of the
Jurisdictional VAO and Police Personnel. In the event of the
5th Respondent disobeying this order, he is liable to be proceeded
against under section 223 of BNS 2023 for wilful disobedience of an
order lawfully promulgated by a public servant.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and is hereby pronounced by me in open
Court, on this 3rd day of September 2024.
ARJUN RAMAKRISHNAN,
Presiding Officer-cum-
Subdivisional Magistrate (North).
————
online publication at “https://styandptg.py.gov.in”
Published by the Director, Government Press, Puducherry.