News Updates

No Property Right To Son Who Beats Parents: Gujarat HC [Read Order]

Mustafa Plumber
27 July 2019 9:06 AM GMT
No Property Right To Son Who Beats Parents: Gujarat HC [Read Order]
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Gujarat High Court has refused to grant any relief to an ungrateful son, who claimed right in her mother's property, a bungalow at Vadodra after he was excluded by the mother in her 'Will' as he would beat the parents.

Justice Paresh Upadhyaya while turning down the appeal filed by Jayeshbhai Patel who had challenged orders of the lower court said "The conjoint reading thereof makes it clear that the mother was aggrieved by her son, she had reasons for being so aggrieved and according to her, she did not wish to give anything from her property to her ungrateful son. This Court finds that, as observed by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Mahesh Kumar (supra) and Leela Rajgopal (supra), any person of ordinary prudence would have acted this way only."

Patel had claimed that the Will of her mother was not proved and that the bungalow was a ground plus one-floor property and he could be allowed to occupy the first floor. However, his two sisters to whom the mother transferred the property right contested the claim. They also relied on a letter written by the Madhukantaben, mother of the petitioner to the police commissioner, narrating an incident of her seeking help as Patel was beating her.

The court after going through the same said "Considering the totality this Court finds that, no question of law, much less any substantial question of law arises in this case worth being gone into by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The findings of facts recorded by the Courts below do not suffer from any perversity; there is no non-reading or misreading of evidence on record. This Second Appeal, therefore, needs to be dismissed."

Click here to download the Order

Next Story
Share it