9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of custom regarding inheritance rights in ancestral and non-ancestral property; Dismissal of second appeal by High Court on the ground of limitation; Error in dismissing appeal by District Judge for not personally presenting the appeal memorandum; Determination of preferential heir in the case of ancestral property; Granting of decree in favor of the plaintiff for all properties in the suit. Analysis: The case involved a dispute over the inheritance rights of the plaintiff, who claimed to be the nearest heir of her deceased brother, against the defendants, who contested her claim based on custom and preferential heirship. The trial court found the plaintiff to be the sister of the deceased and granted her a share of the ancestral and non-ancestral properties. The plaintiff's appeal to the District Judge was dismissed due to procedural reasons, and a subsequent second appeal to the High Court was also dismissed on the ground of limitation, despite being filed within time but with a delay in submitting the trial court's judgment. The Supreme Court criticized the High Court's decision to dismiss the second appeal on technical grounds, emphasizing that procedural rules should not impede the delivery of justice. The Court also noted that the District Judge erred in dismissing the appeal for not being personally presented by the plaintiff. The Court set aside the judgments of the lower courts and proceeded to hear the appeal on its merits. The Court accepted the finding that the plaintiff was the sister of the deceased and analyzed the custom regarding preferential heirs in ancestral and non-ancestral property. The Court concluded that the lower courts were wrong in denying the plaintiff a decree for the ancestral property, as the defendants were collaterals and not entitled to preferential heirship. Therefore, the plaintiff was granted a decree for all properties in the suit. Additionally, the Court ordered the defendants to pay the court fees and the plaintiff's costs throughout the legal proceedings. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed in favor of the plaintiff, securing her inheritance rights as the preferential heir in the case.
|
