34 yrs on, si­b­lings get right over fa­ther’s prop­er­ties from cousin

Hindustan Times ST (Mumbai) - - HTMETRO - HT Cor­re­spon­dent

MUM­BAI: Three si­b­lings won the right over the prop­er­ties owned by their late fa­ther from their cousin af­ter a 34-year fight. Their first cousin had al­legedly taken their fa­ther’s thumb im­pres­sion on the trans­fer deed, when he was bedrid­den.

Fakir­mo­hamed Karim Mistry’s sons – Azam and Im­tiaz– and his daugh­ter Shehnaz Me­mon, had filed a suit against their cousin Dr Shi­raz Rahim Karim Mistry in 1984, claim­ing rights over their fa­ther’s prop­er­ties in the city and in Lon­avala. Shi­raz died dur­ing the case, fol­low­ing which the three con­tin­ued the fight against his wife, si­b­lings and their chil­dren.

As per the suit filed by the three si­b­lings, Shi­raz was the son of Fakir­mo­hamed’s brother Rahim. The two broth­ers with their fam­i­lies stayed in the same build­ing at Church­gate. Af­ter Fakir­mo­hamed’s di­vorce, he

shifted to his brother’s home, while his chil­dren con­tin­ued to stay with his wife. Fakir­mo­hamed con­tin­ued to stay with his brother’s fam­ily, even af­ter Rahim’s death in 1977.

The suit claimed that Fakir­mo­hamed was suf­fer­ing from Parkin­son’s and his health wors­ened in 1983. His speech be­came slurred. He was not able to move his hands much and was un­der con­stant med­i­cal treat­ment. Shi­raz looked af­ter him dur­ing the pe­riod.

The si­b­lings claimed Fakir­mo­hamed signed a deed of re­lease, trans­fer­ring many of his prop­er­ties to Shi­raz around that time. How­ever, he did not sign the deed in writ­ing but it was ex­e­cuted by his thumb print. Un­der the deed, Fakir­mo­hamed sur­ren­dered all his rights over var­i­ous prop­er­ties to Shi­raz.

Af­ter Fakir­mo­hamed’s death, Shi­raz claimed that Fakir­mo­hamed had re­lin­quished his rights in all prop­er­ties. De­spite sev­eral no­tices and replies, both sides failed to come to a con­clu­sion, fol­low­ing which Fakir­mo­hamed’s chil­dren moved a court against Shi­raz.

Af­ter hear­ing the two sides, the court, af­ter 34 years, ac­cepted the claim made by the three si­b­lings, ob­serv­ing that, “the said doc­u­ments has been en­gi­neered in a du­bi­ous man­ner by some­how ob­tain­ing the thumb im­pres­sion on one sheet of pa­per, which ap­pears to have been ad­justed at the last page of the al­leged deed for such en­gi­neered ex­e­cu­tion.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.