HC restores woman's inheritance rights after 44-year legal battle

24/10/2026

JAMMU, Oct 23: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has restored a woman's inheritance claim over her father's property, holding that limitation cannot be decided on assumptions, particularly when the claimant was a minor when her rights were disputed.
Justice Shahzad Azeem allowed a Civil Second Appeal filed by Mst. Themu, setting aside the November 7, 2012 judgment of the District Judge, Kishtwar, which had overturned a trial court decree recognising her entitlement to a share in her deceased father's property.
The dispute dates back to September 1982, when Themu, daughter of late Sonu of Machail village in Padder, filed a suit seeking a half share in 58 kanals and 11 marlas of land. She challenged mutation No. 43, attested on October 15, 1966, exclusively in favour of Shib Devi.
Sonu died around 1963, when Themu was approximately six or seven years old. The Sub Judge, Kishtwar, decreed the connected suits on March 9, 2004, recognising her claim. However, the District Judge reversed the decision in 2012, citing limitation and failure to establish paternity.
Appearing for Themu, Advocate Abhishek Wazir argued that the appellate court had overlooked material oral and documentary evidence establishing her relationship with her father. He also submitted that the court had misapplied Section 50 of the Evidence Act and failed to consider the protection available to minors under Section 6 of the Limitation Act.
Senior Advocate P.N. Raina, assisted by Advocate J.A. Hamal, appeared for the respondents and supported the appellate court's findings.
After examining the record, Justice Azeem observed that the trial court had properly assessed witness testimony and contemporaneous revenue records supporting the appellant's paternity. The Court held that evidence of family relationships under Section 50 of the Evidence Act is not confined to blood relatives, as persons with special knowledge gained through long-standing familiarity may also provide relevant testimony.
The Court further observed that the non-examination of the mother could not, by itself, defeat the claim when other cogent evidence was available.
On limitation, the High Court held that the statutory protection available to minors must be considered and that a denial of rights during mutation proceedings does not necessarily establish a clear and unequivocal threat sufficient to trigger limitation.
Justice Azeem found that the First Appellate Court had assessed the appellant's age and the accrual of the cause of action on assumptions without properly considering the evidence. The respondents had also failed to establish the precise date on which her inheritance rights were unequivocally denied, the Court observed.
Holding that the appellate court had misapplied the relevant legal principles, the High Court answered both substantial questions of law in favour of Themu and set aside the judgment and decree dated November 7, 2012.
Consequently, the trial court's decree dated March 9, 2004, in the two connected civil suits was restored. The appeal was allowed, with the parties directed to bear their own costs.
The judgment was pronounced on October 23, 2026.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty