Dismissed

Kela Devi v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2019WRIC/6072/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the remedy for declaration and restoration of property lies in the Civil Court, not the writ jurisdiction. It further noted the petitioner's claim under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 was inapplicable as the respondent was a daughter-in-law, not a 'child' under the Act.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

Kela Devi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6072 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Kela Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rajesh Rai, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Chief Standing Counsel for State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

Grievance of petitioner is that respondent-4 has evicted petitioner from property in dispute though petitioner is owner of said property and could not have been evicted.

¶7

Respondent-4 is daughter-in-law of petitioner and with regard to title of property in dispute, there appears to be serious controversy between petitioner and respondents.

¶8

Hence, we find that remedy lies to petitioner for declaration and restoration of property in dispute under common law by approaching appropriate Civil Court and not to agitate the matter under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

¶9

Counsel for petitioner submitted that she is entitled to seek protection under the provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2007”). Section 2 thereof defines “Children” and “Maintenance” and read as under :-

¶10

“2. Definition-- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires--

¶11

(a) “children” includes son, daughter, grandson and granddaughter but does not include a minor;

¶12

(b) “maintenance” includes provision for food, clothing, residence and medical attendance and treatment;”

¶13

The liability to maintain parents and senior citizen is upon children as provided under Section 4 of Act, 2007 and daughterin-law is not within the definition of “Children” as is evident from Section 2(a) of Act, 2007, therefore, said Act has no application in the case in hand.

¶14

Counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on Hamina Kang Vs. District Magistrate (U.T.), Chandigarh and Others 2016 (1) RCR (Civ) 976, Sunny Paul and Another Vs. State NCT of Delhi & Others 2017 (2) RCR (Civ) 404, Gayatri Devi Vs. State of U.P. and Others (Writ Petition No. 25621 of 2018) decided on 31.07.2018 and Om Prakash Manchanda Vs. D.M./Collector, Kanpur Nagar and Others decided on 29.11.2018 but none of the above judgements have any application in the case in hand.

¶15

In view thereof, this writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

¶16

Order Date :- 27.2.2019 Siddhant Sahu

Kela Devi v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kela Devi v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Imrana Vs State of U P and 2 Others

M/S Supertech Limited Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Shiv Nath Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sumitra and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Priyanka Saini Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sarva Daman Pundir Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and 3 Others