The Telangana High Court held on Monday that merely because a daughter has a good financial status, it will not deny her right to seek a share in her father’s self-acquired properties.
While rejecting the man’s claim against a district court ruling in favor of his sister about the partition of their parent’s assets, high court judge MG Priyadarshini remarked, reported Live Law.
The man relied on the will allegedly executed by his father wherein it was stated that the sister was not allowed to claim a share in the self-acquired property of her father because of her good financial status.
However, the trial court disbelieved the alleged will shown by the man and decreed the suit in favor of the sister.
“Merely because the plaintiff has good financial status, her right to seek share in the self-acquired properties of her father cannot be denied.” quoted Live Law as saying Justice Priyadarshini.
The petitioner’s other point, according to which his sister was permitted to “enjoy” agricultural land and had collected the proceeds upon its sale, was also taken into consideration by the top court.
The report also stated that the court responded to this by saying it suggested an understanding that the sister was handed her share at the time of her marriage.
The court further stated that no proof was given to show that the woman was permitted to keep the sale process going.
The court addressed a dispute regarding the sister’s purported part of the property, which was paid as dowry at the time of her marriage, during the hearing.
The woman’s brother need not allow her to keep the money from the purported sale of the property measuring Ac. 1.10 guntas, according to the court, if she was given her part of the family’s holdings when she got married.
The top court also rejected the defense that the woman’s goal was to use the benefit of an unwritten partition to only assert her claim to her brother’s properties.
The man is appealing to suppose that there was a “oral partition,” according to the court, even though he made no mention of any oral or unwritten barrier.
According to the report, the court found it unusual because the plea was made in 2010 and the mother signed the ‘will deed’ in 2010, a year before her death.
The aforementioned will deed was not mentioned, despite the fact that the man and his mother submitted a joint declaration in answer to the lawsuit. The court dismissed the appeal after concluding that the district judge’s decision was appropriate.
Comments
0 comment