Mary Roy wins share in fathers properties
By James Paul | 06 Apr 2002
1
Kochi:
Mary Roy, renowned novelist Arundhati Roys mother, who
created history by winning the Supreme Court case that
entitled Christian women to get an equal share along with
their brothers in ancestral properties, has at last won
her share in her fathers properties at Kottayam.
A division bench of the Kerala High Court had allowed
her suit allotting one-sixth share in the property after
the Kottayam sub-court had dismissed her suit for partition
of the property.
Her father, P V Issac, had died without leaving a will in December 1960. Consequently, on the date of his death, his legal heirs Roy, her mother Susie Issac, a sister and two brothers became entitled to his properties. As per Section 33 of the Indian Divorce Act, one-third of the properties will go to the widow and the rest two-third to the children in equal parts.
Issac had a landed property in Ooty Clifton Estate. The defendants in the suit (the mother, the sister and the brothers of Roy) transferred their shares in Clifton Estate to Roy by three settlement deeds executed by them. Such transfer of rights in the estate, according to them, was in lieu of Roys share in the Kottayam properties, which Susie Issac was entitled to enjoy till her death, but without any right to alienate.
The lower court accepted the argument of the defendants that in view of the settlement deeds and acceptance of the Ooty property, which is more valuable than the Kottayam properties, Mary Roy should be deemed to have forfeited her claim over her share in the Kottayam properties.
But the HC disagreed with the reasoning of the court below. The HC said the terms of the settlement deeds do not show that the Ooty property was given to Mary Roy in lieu of her share in the Kottayam properties. "On the other hand, the terms of the deeds clearly show that they were gift deeds executed by the defendants in view of their natural love and affection towards Roy."
"From the terms of the documents it cannot be inferred that Roy had relinquished her rights in the Kottayam properties. The documents should have been made stating that the defendants do not claim any share in the Ooty property since Roy does not claim any right in the Kottayam properties," the bench, consisting of justices S Sankarasubban and R Bhaskaran, said.
A division bench of the Kerala High Court had allowed
her suit allotting one-sixth share in the property after
the Kottayam sub-court had dismissed her suit for partition
of the property.Her father, P V Issac, had died without leaving a will in December 1960. Consequently, on the date of his death, his legal heirs Roy, her mother Susie Issac, a sister and two brothers became entitled to his properties. As per Section 33 of the Indian Divorce Act, one-third of the properties will go to the widow and the rest two-third to the children in equal parts.
Issac had a landed property in Ooty Clifton Estate. The defendants in the suit (the mother, the sister and the brothers of Roy) transferred their shares in Clifton Estate to Roy by three settlement deeds executed by them. Such transfer of rights in the estate, according to them, was in lieu of Roys share in the Kottayam properties, which Susie Issac was entitled to enjoy till her death, but without any right to alienate.
The lower court accepted the argument of the defendants that in view of the settlement deeds and acceptance of the Ooty property, which is more valuable than the Kottayam properties, Mary Roy should be deemed to have forfeited her claim over her share in the Kottayam properties.
But the HC disagreed with the reasoning of the court below. The HC said the terms of the settlement deeds do not show that the Ooty property was given to Mary Roy in lieu of her share in the Kottayam properties. "On the other hand, the terms of the deeds clearly show that they were gift deeds executed by the defendants in view of their natural love and affection towards Roy."
"From the terms of the documents it cannot be inferred that Roy had relinquished her rights in the Kottayam properties. The documents should have been made stating that the defendants do not claim any share in the Ooty property since Roy does not claim any right in the Kottayam properties," the bench, consisting of justices S Sankarasubban and R Bhaskaran, said.
