DAUGHTER'S PROPERTY RIGHTS AFTER RECEIVING DOWRY

• The case revolved around a petition filed by the eldest daughter in a family of 10 people, including four sisters and four brothers
• In her plea, the petitioner drew attention to a deed of succession executed in her favour by her late father, Antonio Martins, declaring her as the property heir
• The plea also contested the transfer deed dated September 8, 1990, by way of which her brothers and mother had transferred the petitioner’s family shop to their two other brothers, seeking to declare the same as “null and void.”
• The daughter also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining her brothers from transferring her property without her written consent.
• The petitioner’s brothers argued that “sufficient dowry” was provided to all four sisters at the time of their marriage, following which three of them founded the partnership.
• The suit shop and the property beneath it were brought into the partnership and was an asset of the firm, they contended
•  Based on this, they argued that neither the petitioner nor her three sisters had any right, title, or interest in the suit shop
• In their counterclaim, the brother also argued that the petitioner’s claim will be barred by the statute of limitations as more than the stipulated three years had passed since the transfer deed was instituted and that the petitioner filed her suit after four years
• The trial court, by a judgment and decree dated May 31, 2003, dismissed the daughter’s suit and partly decreed the counterclaim by cancelling her deed of succession
• However, the first appellate court upheld the dismissal of the daughter’s suit, set aside the decree in the counterclaim, and upheld the succession deed showing her as one of the successors of the late Antonio Martins
• Following this, the daughter instituted a second appeal before the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court questioning the dismissal of her suit
• The court observed that although the present suit was filed by the petitioner after four years of instituting the transfer deed, the daughter came to know about it only six weeks prior to the institution of the suit
• The limitation period, in this case, was governed by the provisions of Article 59 of the Schedule to The Limitation Act 1963
•  For a suit to cancel or set aside an instrument or a decree or for the rescission of a contract, the period of limitation prescribed is three years
• The time for which this period begins to run is when the facts entitling Plaintiff to have the instrument or Decree canceled or set aside or the contract rescinded first become known to him
• The Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court also looked at various provisions of the Portuguese Civil Code, 1867, such as Articles 2184, 1565, 2177, and 2016

• Article 1565 of the Code provides that the parents or grandparents shall not be entitled to sell or mortgage to children or grandchildren if the other children or grandchildren do not consent to the sale or mortgage
• Article 1565 of the Portuguese Civil Code was repealed by extension of the Transfer of Property Act, 1881 to Goa, the Court reiterated its 2011 decision in ‘Norberto Paulo Sebastiao Fernandes & ors. vs. Gabriel Sebastiao Idalino Fernandes..’ to say that it is clear that the provisions of Article 1565 of the Code are still in force
• Article 2177 of the Code provides that a co-owner may not, however, dispose of any specific part of the common property unless the same is allotted to him in partition; and the transfer of the right which he has to the share which belongs to him may be restricted in terms of the law
• Finally, the court concluded that in this case, it was evident that the ‘plea of partnership property was a weak and misconceived attempt to ward off the legal effects of Articles 1565 and 2177 of the Code” and allowed the appeal in favour of the eldest daughter