Mother wins property rights case against son

In a contemporary society where property and money are more powerful than blood, how tragic is it that a mother had to climb the steps of the courthouse for thirty years to save her only shelter against the son she carried for ten months?

After a tiring legal battle that spanned three decades, the mother finally won her case to reclaim the land and house that were temporarily transferred to her son's name solely for the purpose of obtaining a bank loan. A historic verdict recently delivered by the Supreme Court clearly affirmed that the son does not hold the true ownership of the said property, and he merely held it as a trustee on behalf of his mother.

The focal point of this story is a house located in the Mirihana area. With the aim of further expanding her only residence, which she built with immense hardship and effort, the mother transferred the relevant deed to her son, Thilakasiri, in October 1987, based on strong family trust. This was solely to use it as collateral for a bank loan to secure funds for house renovations. Although she expected her son to transfer the property back to her once the loan was repaid, she ultimately had to resort to legal action in 1997 against her own flesh and blood to reclaim her own house.

This conflict became more heated in court with the son's opposing argument. He flatly rejected his mother's plea, stating that this was not merely a temporary transfer made for a financial need, but that he had legally purchased the house for one hundred and twenty-five thousand rupees. Although presenting oral evidence to challenge the facts stated in a written deed is extremely difficult under normal law, the arduous responsibility of determining the true ownership behind this mother's tears fell upon the court.

In this appeal, heard before the three-member Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice Preethi Padman Sooriyasena, Janak de Silva, and Arjuna Obeyesekere, the previous decisions made in favor of the mother by the Galle District Court and the Civil Appellate High Court were further unanimously affirmed. The detailed judgment authored by Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere pointed out that despite the limitations of the Prevention of Frauds Ordinance and the Evidence Ordinance, the true context and intention of the transfer could be investigated through 'Constructive Trusts' under Section 83 of the Trusts Ordinance. Based on the facts that the mother had purchased the land amidst great difficulties, that it was her only home, and that the loan amount obtained was used solely for expanding the house, the Supreme Court clearly affirmed that she never intended to give the true ownership of her property to her son.

This verdict has once again proven that law is not merely a collection of black and white letters, but a living force that recognizes human hearts and the depth of truth. This battle, which concluded amidst thirty years of tears and sighs, serves as an excellent lesson to society that neither nature nor law will ever remain silent against any child who betrays a mother's love in the name of property.