The Telangana High Court recently held that a daughter’s right to seek her share in the self-acquired properties of her father cannot be denied only on account of her good financial status [Tallapelli Kamalamma and another v. Tallapelli @ Jannu Ludia Bloosom].
Justice MG Priyadarsini made the remark while dismissing an appeal filed by a man against a district court ruling in favour of his sister in relation to the partition of their parents’ properties.
In an alleged will deed produced before the Court by the brother (appellant), it was mentioned that since the sister was having “a good financial status”, she was not entitled for any share in the self-acquired properties of her father.
“Merely because plaintiff [sister] is having good financial status, her right to seek share in the self acquired properties of her father cannot be denied,” the Court said.
Justice Maturi Girija Priyadarsin
The Court also considered another argument of the plaintiff that his sister was allowed to enjoy certain agricultural land and upon its sale, the proceeds were taken by her.
“It indicates that there was an understanding that plaintiff [sister] was given her share at the time of marriage,” the Court said.
However, the Court also noted that no evidence was produced to establish that the sister was allowed to retain the sale proceedings.
In this context, the Court also dealt with the argument regarding alleged payment of dowry at the time of the sister’s marriage. The dowry was stated to be her share of property.
“If at all the plaintiff was allotted her share in the family properties at the time of her marriage itself, there is no necessity for the defendant No.2 [brother] to permit the plaintiff to retain the sale proceeds received by alleged sale of the property admeasuring Ac. 1.10 guntas,” said the Court.
The Court also rejected the argument that the intention of the appellant’s sister was only to claim properties owned by her brother by taking advantage of an unwritten partition.
It reasoned that the appellant in the written statement did not mention any oral or unwritten 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,” it added.
It also considered the contention that the appellant’s mother in 2010 had executed a will deed which allegedly mentioned that her daughter was given her share at the time of her marriage in 1971.
The Court found it surprising that the suit in the matter was filed in 2009 and the appellant’s mother executed the alleged will deed in 2010, a year before she died.
It also noted that when the plaintiff and his mother filed a joint statement in response to the suit, there was no mention about the alleged will Deed.
The Court thus found the district judge’s ruling proper and dismissed the appeal as being devoid of any merits.
Advocate Muralidhar Reddy Katram represented the appellant brother.
Advocate M Saleem represented the respondent sister.
Source Link
