Procedure to disown son from father's property

Need Free On-call Legal Advice.??? Just give a missed call on 08010201301(toll free) or visit https://www.seekadvice.in. India's first On-call legal advisor.

I would appreciate if you could advise me on this forum so that it may be helpful to others.

First of all why you want all this .

 

Notary documents have no legal value in property matters.

Originally posted by : LAXMINARAYAN - Sr Advocate.
	First of all why you want all this .   Notary documents have no legal value in property matters.

 

Well i needed this is because i have domestic violence on my head and i am fearing that my wife would seek residential rights in my fathers house. In her petition she is claiming rent for the shelter but at the same time she has mentioned my fathers name saying that he has property both here in india and abroad. She is directly asking for money but what if is she doesn't get it from me ? Then in that case i am expecting her to claim residential rights on my fathers self acquired property. She don't want to live with me but instead want money only.

 

You must fight DV  before any order is passed..

 

There are many technical issues through which DV cases can collapse, show the complaint for proper steps.

The father can issue an advertisement in the form of public or general notice in one or more leading newspaper disowning his son for the reasons as stated therein.  What is the need for an affidavit for this?

Originally posted by : T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
	The father can issue an advertisement in the form of public or general notice in one or more leading newspaper disowning his son for the reasons as stated therein.  What is the need for an affidavit for this?

 

Sir I thought the procedure to publish this on newspaper is that my father would need an affidavit. If it is done without affidavit then it is well and good.

By Newspaper advt you can not disown legal rights.

Courts have rejected such efforts.

 

Go through very recent DELHI  HIGH COURT DIVISION BENCH  citation in this matter.

Then may i know what are my options to completely disown a son ? Does my father need to execute will under someone name or what ?

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

RFA No.587/2010

DATE OF DECISION :22nd February, 2012

SANTOKH SINGH ..... Appellant

Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja with

Mr. Vaibhav Jairaj, Advs.

VERSUS

NARENDER SINGH ..... Respondent

Through: Ms. Kusum Lata Sharma, Adv.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. The challenge by means of this Regular First

Appeal (RFA) filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the

Trial Court dated 18.5.2010 dismissing the suit filed by the

appellant/plaintiff/father against the

respondent/defendant/son. The suit was a suit for

possession with respect to one room and one shop in the

property No. C-129, Udey Vihar, Veer Bazar, Chander Vihar,

Nilothi Extension, New Delhi.

2. The facts as set out in the plaint by the

appellant/plaintiff/father was that the

appellant/plaintiff/father was the owner of the suit property

as the same was purchased out of his own funds and

construction was also raised on the same out of his own

funds. It was pleaded that the parents i.e. the

appellant/father and his wife (mother of the respondent)

were aged parents and they have been ill-treated by the

respondent/defendant/son who has also been guilty of cruel

behaviour with them. It was pleaded that the

appellant/plaintiff/father has disowned and debarred the

respondent/defendant/son from the suit property by getting

a notice published in the newspaper.

3. The respondent/defendant/son contested the suit

and pleaded that the suit property was actually purchased

by the appellant/plaintiff/father from the share which the

respondent/defendant had in the property no. WZ-443-E,

M.S.Block, Hari Nagar, New Delhi. It was pleaded that Sh.

Bood Singh, father of the appellant/plaintiff owned the

property no.2599, Gali No.4, Main Bazar, Shadipur, New

Delhi which was sold by Sh.Bood Singh in the year 1972-73

and sale proceeds of which property were divided equally

amongst sons with their families i.e. of his elder son Sh.

Baldev Singh and his younger son-Sh.Santokh

Singh/plaintiff. On receiving the share from his father-

Sh.Bood Singh, the appellant/plaintiff purchased the

property no.WZ-443/E, M.C.Block, Hari Nagar, New Delhi

admeasuring 150 sq. yds. in his own name. It was pleaded

that the sons of the appellant/plaintiff were minors at that

time. It was further pleaded that the appellant/plaintiff had

sold 50 sq. yds. of his Hari Nagar’s property to pay his debts

and had sold remaining 100 sq. yds., and out of the sale

proceeds of 100 sq. yds., the appellant/plaintiff was said to

have given an amount of `2,25,000/- to each of his other

two sons namely Sh.Gopal Singh and Sh. Kuldeep Singh

towards their share in the said property, however, no share

was given to the respondent/defendant as he was unmarried

and youngest at that point of time. The

respondent/defendant thus pleaded right in the suit property

which was purchased from ancestral funds i.e. funds of Sh.

Bood Singh.

4. After the pleadings were completed, the Trial

Court framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the

present suit as alleged in the preliminary objection 4 of the

written statement? OPD

2. Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected u/O.7 Rule

11 CPC as alleged in the preliminary objection 7 of the

written statement? OPD

3. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary

parties as alleged in the preliminary objection 8 of the

written statement? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to vacant and peaceful

possession of the suit property form the defendant as

prayed for? OPP

5. Relief.”

5. The main issue is whether the suit property is an

HUF property in the hands of the appellant/plaintiff or it is

his individual property/self-acquired property in his hands.

6. Learned counsel for appellant/plaintiff has relied

upon the judgments of the Supreme Court reported as

Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur etc. v. Chander Sen

AIR 1986 SC 1753 and Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar AIR 1987

SC 558 to argue that even if a male Hindu receives property

from his paternal ancestors, unless there exists an HUF, the

property which is inherited by a male Hindu from his

paternal ancestors, will be individual property/self-acquired

property in his hands, of course the inheritance should be

after coming into existence of the Hindu Succession Act,

1956. It is argued that since admittedly in the present case

the appellant/plaintiff received from his father-Sh.Bood

Singh monies in the year 1972-73, and therefore, when the

appellant/plaintiff received monies from his father-Sh.Bood

Singh, the monies in his hands were self-acquired

property/individual property to which his children, including

respondent/defendant had no right. It is argued that the

fact that the appellant/plaintiff gave shares to other sons,

was only in furtherance of the appellant’s/plaintiff’s moral

obligations, and moral obligations cannot be equated with

legal obligations. It is therefore pleaded that the

appellant/plaintiff being the owner of the property, the suit

for possession was wrongly dismissed by the Trial Court

simply because the appellant/plaintiff had not filed any

document of title with respect to the suit property inasmuch

as the suit property was admitted to have been purchased in

the name of the appellant/plaintiff.

Learned counsel for the respondent/defendant

argued in reply that the respondent/defendant was in fact a

co-owner along with the appellant/plaintiff in the suit

property inasmuch as the suit property was purchased from

ancestral funds and also because the respondent/defendant

had spent moneys for construction in the suit plot.

7. Before I proceed to decide the merits of the case,

it is necessary to refer to the relevant findings and

conclusions of the Trial Court, and which read as under:

“It was for the plaintiff to prove that he is exclusive

owner of the suit property and he is competent to maintain

the present suit against the defendant. The plaintiff has not

filed any document on record regarding his title in the suit

property. In the cross examination he has deposed that suit

property was purchased in the year 1999. He further

deposed that he is handicapped and doing no work for the

last 11 years which means that in the year 1999 he was not

doing any work. The only source of income to him was

`1000/- received by him as Govt. pension for old persons

and little savings of `20,000/- to `30,000/-. Thus, it is

evident that the plaintiff was not having sound financial

capacity in the year 1999 in order to purchase the flat.

It is also admitted by the plaintiff in his cross

examination that he purchased the property No. WZ-443/E,

M.S.Block, Hari Nagar, Delhi built upon 150 sq. yards after

receipt of his share from the sale proceeds of Shadipur

property from his father Sh. Bood Singh. He also admits

that after selling the aforesaid Hari Nagar property he paid a

sum of `2,25,000/- each to his other two sons Gopal Singh

and Sh. Kuldeep Singh towards their share in the suit

property. He has also admitted that he has executed

agreements dt.10.12.98 with Gopal Singh and Sh.Kuldeep

Singh in this regard. He further admits that after receipt of

`2,25,000/- each his sons Gopal Singh and Sh. Kuldeep

Singh shifted to their separate accommodation and the

defendant continued to live with him and his wife in the suit

property. The plaintiff has admitted that he has paid

`2,25,000/- each to his sons Gopal Singh and Sh.Kuldeep

Singh in lieu of their respective shares in the property

owned by him. It is therefore evident that sons of the

plaintiff including the defendant had a share in the property

at Hari Nagar which was sold by the plaintiff in the year

1995-96. It is also established that the plaintiff paid

`2,25,000/- each to his other two sons Gopal Singh and Sh.

Kuldeep Singh in lieu of their share in the suit property but

did not pay anything to the defendant and the defendant

continued to stay with the plaintiff.

The plaintiff has also admitted in his cross

examination that after pay `2,25,000/- each to Sh. Kuldeep

Singh and Sh.Gopal Sing, he purchased the suit property

from the remaining amount of sale proceeds of Hari Nagar

property.

The plaintiff has also failed to prove that he

disowned the defendant. He has not filed any copy of notice

got published in the newspaper “Punjab Kesri” dated

7.9.2009 vide which he alleges to have disowned and

disherited the defendant. No reason has been put forward

for not filing the copy of the said documents.

On the other hand, the defendant has been able to

prove his contentions in his evidence. Noting contradictory

has come out in his cross examination. DW-1 and DW-3

have also fully supported the case of the defendant and

have also not stated anything contradictory in their cross

examination.

The plaintiff has, thus, failed to prove that he is

exclusive owner of the suit property and has disowned his

con i.e. the defendant. He has also failed to prove that the

defendant has no right or interest in the suit property.

I ,therefore, hold that the defendant is entitled to

half of the share in the suit property. He is in occupation of

the portion shown in colour red in the site plan Ex.PW1/7 in

his own right and as owner thereof. The plaintiff has no

locus standi to file the present suit against the defendant.”

8. In my opinion, the Trial Court has fallen into an

error in holding that the suit must fail because the

appellant/plaintiff failed to file title deeds of his property.

Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has pointed out

that the pleadings, in fact, show that the

respondent/defendant admits that the suit property was in

the name of the appellant/plaintiff/father, and therefore, the

Trial Court could not have arrived at the finding that merely

because the title deeds were not filed, the suit for

possession should be dismissed. In this case, I take on

record the argument as urged on behalf of the

appellant/plaintiff that the original title deeds of the property

were taken away by the respondent/defendant, and who

was having a common mess with the appellant/plaintiff at

one point of time, and taking advantage of this fact, that he

has the original title deeds, this objection that original title

deeds of the suit property were not filed, was taken, and

which amounts to a person taking advantage of his own

wrong. It may also be relevant to note that the old age of

the parents of the respondent/defendant, i.e. of the

appellant/plaintiff/father and the mother would be another

reason as to why, along with the fact of a common mess,

that the respondent/defendant would have been able to take

possession of the title deeds of the suit property. In any

case, the said aspect of filing the title deeds is immaterial in

the facts of the present case, inasmuch as the

respondent/defendant claims ownership of the suit property

on the ground that the same is an ancestral property, i.e. it

is purchased by the appellant/plaintiff, but from the

ancestral funds.

9. In view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in

the cases of Chander Sen (supra) and Yudhishter (supra), it

is no longer res integra that even if the appellant/plaintiff

did receive funds from his father, the same were actually

individual/self-acquired in the hands of the appellant/plaintiff

inasmuch as these funds were received in the year 1972-73

i.e. after passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. There

is absolutely no evidence on record that there ever existed

any Hindu Undivided Family as is legally known between the

parties, and therefore, even if the appellant/plaintiff receives

ancestral funds, since the same were received after passing

of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the

respondent/defendant can have no right, title and interest in

the funds which the appellant/plaintiff received from his

father, or the suit property purchased from such funds.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent/defendant

also argued that the respondent/defendant spent funds for

construction of the property, however, considering that the

respondent/defendant was just about 21 years of age (and

as per his best case he had been working only for three

years prior to purchase of the suit property) and having no

proved/established source of income when the construction

took place, I would not believe the oral testimony of the

respondent/defendant that he has spent funds on the

construction of the property. Also, the appellant-father had

funds from the sale of the Hari Nagar property, and which

property was sold for `20.50 lacs. The documents being

certain receipts exhibited as Ex.DW1/1 to Ex.DW1/22,

contain some receipts in the name of the

respondent/defendant, however, most of the receipts are

only small slips of paper containing no name . I have

already noted above that at one point of time both the

parties were living together and having a common mess and

therefore, the respondent/defendant seems to have not only

taken away the title deeds of the property, but also, along

with the title deeds, these receipts also would have been

taken by the respondent/defendant and which are now filed

as Ex.DW1/1 to Ex.DW1/22. What is really important to

note is that the respondent/defendant surely could not have

at the age of 21 years earned so much so as to spend

money for constructing an immovable property. Of course,

living with the appellant/plaintiff he would have spent time

and energy towards construction including going to the

market for purchase of the materials, and possibly for that

reason some receipts do contain his name, however, that

does not necessarily mean that the respondent/defendant

had funds with him so as to spend for construction of the

suit property.

11. I may note that during the course of hearing,

considering that the present dispute is a family matter I

endeavoured my best to see that a settlement is arrived at.

Various proposals were very fairly given on behalf of the

appellant/plaintiff/father, without prejudice to his rights in

furtherance of his moral obligation, for giving a portion of

the property or an amount to the respondent/defendant/son,

however, the respondent/defendant/son insisted that he will

not take anything else less than at least 35% of the suit

property besides also the only commercial portion/shop in

the property (which would be approximately around 45% to

50% value of the property). Accordingly, no compromise

could be arrived at.

12. In view of the above, appeal is accepted.

Impugned judgment and decree dated 18.5.2010 is set

aside. Suit of the appellant/plaintiff/father is decreed as

against the respondent/defendant/son for one room and one

shop which is in possession of the respondent/defendant/son

in the suit property bearing no. C-129, Udey Vihar, Veer

Bazar, Chander Vihar, Nilothi Extension, New Delhi shown in

red in the site plan filed with the plaint, Ex.PW1/7. Parties

are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared.

Trial Court record be sent back.

Sd./-

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J

FEBRUARY 22, 2012

 

 

 

As per this judgement i can see that disownment can be done via newspaper.

Read 2014 Preety saluja case which has disregarded news paper advt for disowning son particularly for rights of wife of the son.

Thank you for pointing me this judgement. Now may i know what are my options. Does my father need to execute a will ? Or how does he seperate me from his property ? Please advise as by discussing with you guys i am also gaining good knowledge about it.

contest  case properly  ,  you can  win  D V CASE.

Sir contesting is always going to be there but i have to cover up myself as well and that is the only way i can stop them. It is very clear that there will be a civil case from our side once i prepare will and then i will have some courage to stand in front of judge.