Last Updated:
Supreme Court On Daughter Property Rights: The Supreme Court has given a big decision on an issue related to the rights of girls in their father’s property. The father had evicted the daughter from his property through his will. After this, the Supreme Court has said that in such a case the wishes of the testator i.e. the person writing the will will be considered paramount.
Supreme Court On Daughter Property Rights: The Supreme Court has given an important decision regarding property rights. Considering the will of the testator as paramount, it has validated the will of a father in which he had deprived his daughter Shaila Joseph of property because she married a boy from outside the community. This case highlights the importance of freedom of will despite several landmark decisions on gender equality. A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K Vinod Chandran overturned the decisions of the Kerala High Court and the trial court, which had ordered the division of NS Sreedharan’s property equally among his nine children, setting aside the will.
According to a report in Times of India, Sreedharan had nine children, but in his registered will made in 1988, property was handed over to the remaining eight children except Shaila. The reason was Shaila’s marriage outside the community. While writing the judgment, Justice Chandran said that the will has been clearly proved and there cannot be any interference in it. The decisions of the High Court and Trial Court are cancelled. Shaila Joseph has no claim on her father’s property, as the property has been handed over to her other siblings through the will.
Senior advocate PB Krishnan, appearing for Shaila in the court, argued that his client should get at least 1/9 share, which is an insignificant part of the property. But the bench clarified that the question of equality does not arise in case of a person’s wishes in the distribution of property. We are not on equity (equitable distribution). The will of the testator is paramount. His last will cannot be deviated from or revoked.
The will of the will writer is supreme
The court also said that the rule of caution does not apply to the content of the will, because it is the individual’s complete freedom to decide how to distribute his property. Only if all the heirs were deprived of the will, the court could exercise caution. But here only one daughter has been excluded and a clear reason has been given for this. The bench remarked that the reason for deprivation has been given, but its acceptability does not set a rule of caution for us. We cannot put ourselves in the place of the testator. We cannot impose our opinions; His desire is motivated by his own reasons.
In the decision, Shaila’s partition suit was dismissed while allowing the civil appeals. The case is from Kerala, where after the death of Sreedharan in 1990, the brothers and sisters had filed an injection suit and presented a copy of the will. Shaila did not take part in it, which the court later held against her.
