Unable to offer help in a legal battle being fought between a mother and her sons,a Delhi High Court judge has offered the parties an alternative solution help of the mediation centre. This court can do no more than advise the parties to bridge the gap by taking recourse to mediation proceedings. If and when the parties desire to do so,the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre will ensure senior and experienced mediators assist the parties in resolving the dispute between mother and sons for the acquisition of property. Justice Reva Khetrapal said in her recent order. Adjudicating the petition of the woman,in her late 50s,Justice Khetrapal noted that at the heart of the matter were two different wills that gave the right over a certain property separately to the mother and her sons. The petition by the woman had sought a declaration by the court that she was the co-owner of a property in Shanti Niketan,the front portion of which had been let out to the British High Commission. She had submitted the will prepared by her father in 1985 whereby she was categorically termed the owner of 50 per cent of the house,comprising the rear portion of the building. Another will prepared by the womans mother in 2003 bequeathed,among other properties,the Shanti Niketan house to her grandchildren the petitioners sons. The sons had recently written to the British High Commission,informing that the rent should be paid to them and not their mother. During this time,the woman was staying abroad with her husband,an IFS officer,on his official deputation. After the High Commission intimated her of the letter,she filed a suit in the High Court seeking declaration of her right and a restraint order against her sons. The sons argued on the basis of the second will but also made it clear to the judge that they did not want to throw their mother out of the house they only sought legal permission to stay in the same house. Justice Khetrapal noted that the second will,awarding ownership to the sons could not to be held legally tenable as the woman was the co-owner,as established by authentic documents. The balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff,who is presently in possession and is admittedly very sick,apart from being advanced in years, the judge noted. When the sons requested for a place in the house,the court expressed its inability to pass such an order and noted that was essentially a family matter.
