E-Paper
Daughter with good financial status allowed share in parents' assets? Telangana HC says…
As per a ‘will deed’, a man argued that his sister had a good financial status, and was not entitled for any share in the properties of her father
A daughter cannot be denied the right to seek her share in the properties of her father just because her financial status is good, The Telangana high court ruled on Monday.
While rejecting an appeal filed by a man against a district court ruling in favour of his sister in relation to the partition of their parents' assets, high court's Justice MG Priyadarshini made the above remark, legal website Bar and Bench reported.
According to a purported will deed produced before the court, the man in the plea argued that since his sister had a good financial status, she was not entitled for any share in the properties of her father.
ALSO READ: Unmarried daughter has right to maintenance from parents: Allahabad HC
The high court also considered another argument of the petitioner who stated that his sister was allowed to ‘enjoy’ agricultural land and upon its sale, had taken the proceeds. To this, the court remarked that it indicated an understanding the sister was given her share at the time of her marriage, the report added.
No evidence was produced to establish that the woman was allowed to retain the proceedings of the sale, the court added. During the hearing, the court also responded to an argument pertaining to alleged dowry payment at the time of sister's marriage, which was reportedly her share in the property.
ALSO READ: HC orders son who ousted elderly mother from her home to vacate the residence
The court said that if the woman was allotted her share in the family properties at the time of her marriage, then her brother need not permit her to retain the proceeds received by alleged sale of the property admeasuring Ac. 1.10 guntas.
The high court also quashed the argument that the intention of the woman was only to claim properties owned by her brother due to the advantage of an unwritten partition. The court said that the man did not mention any oral or unwritten partition and is pleading to imagine that there was any ‘oral partition'.
"In fact, he is pleading the Court to imagine that there was an oral partition between the parties by contending in the grounds of appeal that permitting the plaintiff to retain the sale proceeds of sale of Ac.1.10 guntas indicates that there was an understanding that plaintiff was given her share at the time of marriage,” the Bar and Bench report quoted the court as saying.
The court also addressed the contention that the man's mother in 2010 executed a will deed allegedly mentioning her daughter getting her share at the time of her marriage way back in 1971.
As per the report, the court found it surprising that the plea was filed in 2010 and the mother executed the ‘will deed’ in 2010, a year before she died. While noting that the man and his mother filed a joint statement in response to the suit, there was no mention of the said will deed.
As a result, the court found the district judge's ruling proper and rejected the appeal.
