Posted On by &filed under Top Law News.

A  man’s  plea to a Delhi court to declare his  son as having no ties with him as he married without his consent and to divest him of his rights over his property, has been dismissed on the ground that the plea was “ineffective.”

Senior Civil Judge Anil Kumar Sisodia dismissed the plea citing the settled legal position that the man is free to dispose of his self-acquired property the way he wants and is not obliged to give it to his son, while he cannot divest him of his right over the family’s ancestral property.

North-east Delhi resident Babu Kureshi had moved the court seeking its decree that he has broken all ties, including the blood relations, with his son Javed and his wife and has also debarred them from inheriting all movable and immovable properties.

Kureshi sought the decree arguing that his son has the company of anti-social elements and misbehaves with him and other members of the family. He added Javed went on marry without his consent in September 2010.

He told the court he had on October 12, 2010 had published a public notice in a national daily, renouncing all his ties with his son and his wife and had also informed the police and civil administration about the same.

He added that despite publication of this notice, police visited his house in November 2010, when his son had a quarrel with his wife and she called up police.

This incident made him seek a formal court decree for renouncing his ties, but the court dismissed the same terming it as ineffective

Javed in his written statement to the court had denied all allegations.

The court dismissed the suit saying, “Mere declaration that the plaintiff has debarred his son and his wife from his movable and immovable properties is ineffective and unnecessary, in as much as, the plaintiff can always dispose of his self acquired property in any manner he desires and the defendant would have no right to interfere in the same.”

“Whereas if the property is ancestral, no decree of declaration given by any court would extinguish the right of the defendant to claim a share in the same. Hence the decree of declaration sought by the plaintiff is ineffective,” the judge said.

Leave a Reply

Be the First to Comment!

Notify of