Family Law Case: Koushila Devi Ghimire v. Parbati Devi Pandey, NKP 2048, No.11, P. 745, D.N. 4412
Case: Cancellation of deed
Plaintiff: Koushila Devi Ghimire et al.
Defendant: Parbati Devi Pandey et al.
Decision Number: 4412
This case is related with cancellation of deed/document cancellation/Invalidation of Transaction.
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs, Koushiladevi, Vishnu Hari, and Rishiram Ghimire, were members of a joint family and coparceners of ancestral property. The disputed property was a house and land located in Kaski District, Rupakot VDC, Ward No. 3, Plot No. 1356. Property was registered in the name of Liladevi Ghimire (wife of Vishnu Hari). On 2036/12/10, Vishnu Hari transferred the property to his wife Liladevi, stating it was compensation for misuse of dowry property [“Maiti Pewa Dhan” meaning property or wealth received from the maternal side or through dowry].
Later, on 2040/11/22, Liladevi sold the property to Parbatidevi Pandey. The plaintiffs claimed that the property was joint family property and that it was sold without the consent of other coparceners, requesting cancellation of the deed under Section 10 of the Transaction Act (Len-den Byawastha). The defendants argued that the property was private Stridhan(स्त्रीधन) (woman’s separate property), so the sale was valid.
Legal Issues:
- Whether the disputed property is joint family property or the separate (Stridhan) property of Liladevi?
- Whether the plaintiffs can seek cancellation of the sale deed when the earlier transfer was not challenged in time.
- Whether the use of the term “pewa” affects the legal nature and ownership of the property.
Decision of the Courts:
Kaski District Court:
Kaski District Court rejected the plaintiff’s claim and held that the deed could not be cancelled. Court found that the property had already been transferred to Liladevi on 2036/12/10 as compensation for dowry-related property by her husband, and the coparceners had failed to challenge the transfer within time limit. The transfer of property from Vishnu to Liladevi was as Pewa, which is regarded as personal property, On this basis, Court concluded that Liladevi had obtained valid ownership over the property so she has authority to sale or transfer the property as per her will and therefore the later sale deed by Liladevi was legally valid.
Gandaki Zonal Court:
Gandaki Zonal Court upheld the decision of District Court. Court held that Liladevi had lawful ownership of the property as her private property. Court further observed that the plaintiffs failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove that the property still remained joint family property. Therefore, the earlier judgment was affirmed.
Western Regional Court:
Western Regional Court also upheld the decision of lower court. Court held that unless the earlier transfer deed of 2036/12/10 was first cancelled, the later sale deed of 2040/11/22 could not automatically be invalidated. Since the earlier transfer remained legally valid, Court concluded that Liladevi’s ownership had already been legally established.
Supreme Court:
Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of lower courts. Dowry of Liladevi was used by her husband, so her husband transferred the house and land to her on 2036/12/10 as compensation. So court observed that the property had actually come from the maternal side as dowry and therefore qualified as Stridhan (woman’s separate property). And Court further held that the plaintiffs had failed to challenge the earlier deed within the legal time limit.
Merely describing dowry as pewa or pewa as dowry in a document does not change the nature of property. Since the property received through the deed was compensation for property given by Liladevi’s parental family, and there is no dispute that it came from her parental side, it does not become invalid simply because it was written as pewa.
On these grounds, court rejected the plaintiffs claim to cancel the sale deed.
Principle Established:
The property gained by women in dowry is her personal property and women has exclusive right over that property. In other word, Court further recognized the stridhan principle, which holds that property received by a woman from her maternal side or in connection with dowry becomes her separate property over which she has full ownership rights.
It was also held that the limitation principle applies in such disputes, where failure to challenge a transaction within a reasonable time bars the parties from later seeking cancellation of that transaction.
*Note: [Dowry/Pewa (Woman’s Property): Cash, jewelry, livestock, or land voluntarily given to a daughter by her parental family.]
