On Monday, the Telangana High Court ruled that a daughter’s ability to pursue a stake in her father’s possessions he has self-acquired will not be curtailed just because she is well-off.
High court judge MG Priyadarshini made the following remarks when dismissing the man’s appeal against a district court decision that sided with his sister about the distribution of their parents’ assets, according to Live Law.
The guy relied on a will purportedly made by his father, which said that the sister’s high financial standing precluded her from claiming a portion of her father’s self-acquired property.
The trial court, however, rejected the man’s purported will and decided the claim in the sister’s favour.
“The plaintiff’s right to seek a share in the properties she and her father have self-acquired cannot be denied, simply because of her strong financial standing.” Justice Priyadarshini was cited by Live Law.
The top court also took into account the petitioner’s second argument, which said that his sister was allowed to “enjoy” agricultural property and had received the revenues from its sale.
The court’s response to this, according to the newspaper, was that it was understood the sister was given her portion when she got married.
The court went on to say that there was no evidence provided to support the woman’s ability to continue the selling procedure.
During the hearing, the court addressed a disagreement about the sister’s alleged share of the property, which was given to her as dowry when she got married.
The lady was handed her share of the family’s properties when she got married, thus her brother need not let her to keep the proceeds from the alleged sale of the land measuring Ac. 1.10 guntas, the court said.
The highest court likewise dismissed the defence, arguing that the lady simply intended to seize her brother’s possessions by using the advantages of an unwritten division.
Despite not mentioning any written or spoken barriers, the guy is claiming that there was a “oral partition,” the court said.
The mother signed the “will deed” in 2010, the year before she passed away, and the plea was entered in 2010, therefore the court deemed it strange, according to the newspaper.
In response to the case, the man and his mother filed a joint declaration; however, that particular will act was not mentioned. After determining that the district judge’s ruling was proper, the court rejected the appeal.
