Hyderabad: The Telangana Supreme Court made it clear that children cannot challenge the gift deed signed by their mother on the grounds that the property in question is joint family property and the mother is the supposed but not the actual owner.
The court relied on Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, which protects a Hindu woman’s right to self-acquired property.
A bench comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice MG Priyadarsini, which passed the order, was hearing an appeal filed by a son challenging the orders of the trial court in his plea seeking cancellation of the gift 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 for 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 agreement in favour of Rajendra.
Another son, Bajrang Agarwal, challenged this and filed a suit. He claimed that the property was not acquired by his mother herself as his father had bought it in her name. He demanded his share as a son. The trial court rejected his petition, following which Bajrang filed an appeal in the Supreme Court.
The court upheld the decision of the trial court and observed that the appellant Bajrang could have raised the issue whether it was joint family property but he did not object when his mother executed the first gift deed in favour of her three sons and described it as self-acquired property. The court stated that the Hindu woman is entitled to self-acquired property if she has such property in her possession under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. Further, the court stated that if the son argues that it is joint family property, he should file suit and declare the property as such.
Justice Bhattacharya observed that the writ must show clear merit and not be an illusion or mirage of a cause of action.
The Court also found that the son had filed a suit of harassment and that it was a case of “try your luck” where the plaintiff son was torn and had changed his attitude; he had first accepted the property as self-acquired and then questioned whether his mother had the right to transfer the property in favour of his other brother.
