Hyderabad: Telangana high court has held that a coparcener’s rights under the Hindu Succession Act crystallise only from the date on which the coparcener is in the mother’s womb, and that such rights cannot be claimed for a period before birth or conception.
Applying this principle, a division bench, comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Renuka Yara, recently rejected the claim of a woman, who was born on Nov 4, 2003, that she had an interest in a property transaction entered into by her father in 1988, 15 years before her birth. The woman and her minor brother challenged a March 2019 Lok Adalat award. Under the Hindu Succession Act, a coparcener is a person who can claim a right over ancestral property by birth. The award had recorded a compromise between their late father and his relatives concerning property at Alwal in Medchal-Malkajgiri district.
The court noted “the petitioners’ father lived until Nov 2020, more than a year and eight months after the Lok Adalat award, but never objected to it, and his wife also did not object. Because of urban land ceiling restrictions, that their father executed a registered GPA in 1989, and that the agreement was validated in 2002, they said the sale deed could not be registered earlier. You Can Also Check: Gold Rate in Hyderabad | Silver Rate in Hyderabad | Bank Holidays in Hyderabad | Public Holidays in Hyderabad | Hyderabad AQI | Weather in Hyderabad | Petrol Price in Hyderabad | Diesel Price in Hyderabad | CNG Price in Hyderabad | LPG Price in Hyderabad Stay updated with the latest Hyderabad news.
General allegations are insufficient,” the court said and dismissed the petition. Taking note of these aspects and relying on precedent rulings, the bench pointed out that the petitioners failed to plead specific particulars of fraud, failed to prove signature discrepancies, and had pursued collateral proceedings against a Lok Adalat award that carries statutory finality as a decree. “Mere allegation of fraud, by itself, cannot, by itself, be sufficient for setting aside a Lok Adalat Award. Download the TOI App.
The petitioners contended that they were not parties to the 1988 agreement of sale or the compromise before the Lok Adalat. The respondent property purchasers countered that the petitioners’ father had executed the agreement of sale in June 1988 after receiving full consideration and delivering possession.
The court held that the petition had no merit and declined to interfere with the award, though it said the case was fit for imposing a fine and refrained from imposing it. “The award was obtained by fraud, that their father had not signed the compromise memo, and that there were variations in his signatures on the agreement of sale, GPA, written statement and compromise memorandum,” they alleged. They also claimed an independent right in the property.