After 28 years, mom given share in property by Bombay HC
December 05, 2016A mother finally got her share of the property she had jointly bought with her son, after fighting it out for 28 long years, half of them in the court. The high court of Bombay granted an elderly woman 23rd share of the property bought by the son in his name without her knowledge, despite the mother having paid 23rd of the sale deed.
In May 1975, Candolina Conceicao, a resident of Caranzalem, who was a mundkar (tenant) of the property had agreed to purchase the plot for a total consideration of Rs9,500. She had paid an amount of Rs6,000 and agreed to pay Rs3,500 at the time of execution of the sale deed. She produced the receipt of payment of Rs6000 before the court to substantiate her claim.
At the time of execution of the sale deed in July 1975, the mother had accompanied the son to the sub registrar's office to sign the sale deed, where the son paid the rest of the amount and executed the sale deed in his name and the mother was made to put her thumb impression as a witness. Candolina approached the trial court after her son Peter told her in 1988, that she had no right to the house as it was purchased by him only .Subsequently , she made an inquiry with the sub registrar and found that the plot was indeed in her son's name.
Candolina pointed out before the court that she had paid Rs6000 which she earned by running a kiosk. The licence for repairs of the house even after purchase was obtained in her name and she was paying the house tax in her own name. Her son died in the course of the case and his legal heir was made party to the case. His son's lawyer had argued before the court that the suit was not maintainable as it was filed by her after a long delay in 1989 regarding a sale deed executed in 1975.
HC justice F M Reis observed that the suit was within the period of limitation. The court observed: “The name of the respondent No. 1(Candolina) is to be included in the sale deed dated June 12, 1975 to the effect that the respondent no 1 is a joint owner of the disputed property whereby the share of the respondent No. 1is to the extent of 23rd and the share of the deceased appellant No. 1 (Peter) is to the extent of 13rd.“ The HC said that both the parties shall continue to be in occupation of the respective portions being occupied by them presently, until the property is divided between the son and the mother in the aforesaid shares by metes and bounds.
In May 1975, Candolina Conceicao, a resident of Caranzalem, who was a mundkar (tenant) of the property had agreed to purchase the plot for a total consideration of Rs9,500. She had paid an amount of Rs6,000 and agreed to pay Rs3,500 at the time of execution of the sale deed. She produced the receipt of payment of Rs6000 before the court to substantiate her claim.
At the time of execution of the sale deed in July 1975, the mother had accompanied the son to the sub registrar's office to sign the sale deed, where the son paid the rest of the amount and executed the sale deed in his name and the mother was made to put her thumb impression as a witness. Candolina approached the trial court after her son Peter told her in 1988, that she had no right to the house as it was purchased by him only .Subsequently , she made an inquiry with the sub registrar and found that the plot was indeed in her son's name.
Candolina pointed out before the court that she had paid Rs6000 which she earned by running a kiosk. The licence for repairs of the house even after purchase was obtained in her name and she was paying the house tax in her own name. Her son died in the course of the case and his legal heir was made party to the case. His son's lawyer had argued before the court that the suit was not maintainable as it was filed by her after a long delay in 1989 regarding a sale deed executed in 1975.
HC justice F M Reis observed that the suit was within the period of limitation. The court observed: “The name of the respondent No. 1(Candolina) is to be included in the sale deed dated June 12, 1975 to the effect that the respondent no 1 is a joint owner of the disputed property whereby the share of the respondent No. 1is to the extent of 23rd and the share of the deceased appellant No. 1 (Peter) is to the extent of 13rd.“ The HC said that both the parties shall continue to be in occupation of the respective portions being occupied by them presently, until the property is divided between the son and the mother in the aforesaid shares by metes and bounds.
OUR TAKE
The sad situation that the mother had to go through is deplorable. Being cheated by her very own blood might have hurt her very deeply. But kudos to her for keeping her fight alive and fighting it out in the court.She did not lose hope in the judicial system even after such a long delay. It should reinstill in us the faith that we all should have in the Indian judiciary. It is not just the rich that could benefit. Everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. A really happy moment indeed!
Latest Legal News
3 Bills to Renew India's Criminal Justice System presented in Lok Sabha; All you Need to Know
âSorry state of affairs' in PoSH Act implementation; SC orders Govts. to ensure ICCs are constituted