Telangana HC Rules Children Can’t Contest Mother’s Gift Settlement Deed
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court made it clear that children cannot challenge the gift settlement deed executed by their mother by arguing that the subject property was joint family property and that the mother was the ostenisble owner and not the real owner.
The court cited Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, which preserves the right of a female Hindu to own self-acquired property.
A division bench comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice M.G. Priyadarsini, which passed the order, was dealing with an appeal suit filed by a son challenging the trial court orders in rejecting his plaint seeking cancellation of the gift settlement deed executed by his 75-year-old mother Susheela Agarwal in favour of his brother Rajendra Agarwal.
Earlier, the mother had executed a gift deed on a property in Jubilee hills in favour of her three sons, stating that it was her self-acquired property. Later, she cancelled the gift deed and executed a gift settlement deed in favour of Rajendra.
Challenging this, another son, Bajrang Agarwal, filed a plaint stating that the property was not self-acquired by his mother as his father had purchased it in her name, and sought his share as the son. The trial court rejected his plea, following which Bajrang filed an appeal before the High Court.
The bench upheld the decision of the trial court and observed that the appellant Bajrang could have raised the question that it was joint family property, but he had no objection when his mother had executed the first gift deed in favour of her three sons by mentioning it as self-acquired property. The court said that the female Hindu had the right of self-acquired property, if she has possession of that property as prescribed in Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act. Further, the court also said if the son argued that it was joint family property, he should file suit for declaration that the property as such.
Justice Bhattacharya observed that the plaint must disclose a clear right to sue, not an illusion or mirage of a cause of action.
Further, the bench observed that the son had filed a vexatious suit and it was an instance of try-one’s-luck plaint where the plaintiff son had blown hot and cold and reversed his stand; from accepting the property as being self-acquired to questioning the right of his mother to transfer the property in favour of his other brother.
