Business2 min read

Daughter’s inheritance rights can’t be defeated by limitation: J&K and Ladakh HC

By · Via Times of India · Published by Everything Blog

In short

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has overturned a 44-year-old legal battle, restoring a woman's right to inherit her father's property. The dispute, dating back to 1982, began when Themu, daughter of late Sonu, filed a civil suit claiming half-share in land left behind by her father. The case was initially won by her in 2004 but reversed by a district judge in 2012 on grounds of limitation and failure to establish paternity.

Key points

  • The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has overturned a 44-year-old legal battle, rest…: The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has overturned a 44-year-old legal battle, restoring a woman's right to inherit her father's property.
  • The dispute, dating back to 1982, began when Themu, daughter of late Sonu, filed a civil…: The dispute, dating back to 1982, began when Themu, daughter of late Sonu, filed a civil suit claiming half-share in land left behind by her father.
  • The case was initially won by her in 2004 but reversed by a district judge in 2012 on gro…: The case was initially won by her in 2004 but reversed by a district judge in 2012 on grounds of limitation and failure to establish paternity.

Sources checked by our analysis pipeline: 1

JAMMU: The high court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has restored a woman’s right to inherit her father’s property after a 44-year-long legal battle, holding that an adverse revenue entry recorded during when she was a minor cannot automatically defeat a legitimate inheritance claim on limitation grounds.The dispute dates back to Sept 14, 1982, when Themu, daughter of late Sonu, filed a civil suit claiming half share in land measuring 58 kanals and 11 marlas left behind by her father.She challenged mutation no. 43 dated Oct 15, 1966, which had been entered exclusively in favour of one Shib Devi and sought declaration of her inheritance rights along with consequential possession.

On March 9, 2004, the sub-judge court in Kishtwar passed a decree recognising her entitlement. However, the district judge reversed the decree on Nov 7, 2012, primarily on the grounds of limitation and failure to establish paternity.Justice Shahzad Azeem of the HC, while allowing the appeal filed by Themu, set aside the judgment of the district judge, Kishtwar, observing that limitation cannot be determined on presumptions and conjectures, particularly where the claimant was a minor when her rights were initially disputed and the defendants failed to establish when the cause of action actually arose.

Original source: timesofindia.indiatimes.com

Business