The Bombay High Court has reversed its earlier ruling that barred pop star Shweta Shetty, 45, from entering the SoBo home of her father, 95-year-old Mahalaba Rampa Shetty. It has been brought to the court’s attention that the singer’s father registered a gift deed in favour of his three daughters, excluding Shetty. The court concluded, “What has been done is fraud on the Court and a fraud on the statute,” rescinding its earlier order.
After November 2021, it became public knowledge that on August 5, 2021, her father had registered a gift deed in behalf of her three sisters. Shetty, who was born in Germany but holds Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) status in India, alleged that her siblings coerced their 95-year-old father into making the decision. Shetty informed mid-day that she had been the victim of a malicious plot in which her siblings had colluded to file a fake complaint against her, which led to the earlier tribunal judgement, and that there had been fraud in court.
When I was accused of harassing my 95-year-old father to gain a piece of his property, I was thrown into a tailspin from which I have yet to recover. The rest of my sisters conspired against me, took me to court, and then humiliated me in front of the whole world through the press. “My sisters wouldn’t let me into my father’s house when I got back from Germany, so I had to call my friends and ask to stay with them for a few days during the pandemic,” Shetty told mid-day.
I have always had faith in and obedience to our legal system. The day that justice is served has finally come,” she continued.
Her father had complained to the Welfare Tribunal and Deputy Collector that Shetty had been pestering him in an effort to get a piece of the family fortune, prompting them to issue the original order under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007.
On November 27, 2020, the tribunal issued its ruling, and Shetty immediately filed an appeal with the Bombay High Court. A Division Bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Madhav Jamdar declared that Shetty has no right to claim a piece of her father’s property while he is still alive in a decision issued on November 25, 2021, upholding the judgement of the tribunal court.
After learning fresh material that had been concealed by Shetty’s father and three sisters, the same panel of the Bombay High Court reversed its previous ruling. Shetty claims that her sisters manipulated their father into rejecting her, despite the fact that he wanted her to move home with him. Since then, Shetty has separated from her father.
On August 22, 2022, Shetty’s attorney Manoj Agiwal informed to the court that his client had submitted a review plea. In its ruling, the same panel of the Bombay High Court stated, “A review is sought, and in our view correctly of our order of 25th November 2021.” Using such specifics, we ruled against the Petitioner, Shweta, the daughter of the Second Respondent, her father’s widow.
According to the information provided to us at the time, “Flat No. 2A, Giriraj Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, 11 Altamont Road, Mumbai (sic),” is the sole and absolute property of the 2nd Respondent (Father).
There was “what was not disclosed to us was that the factual position had changed (and changed drastically) by the time of our judgement,” the court said. (sic)
The court claims it had no idea that the second respondent (Shetty’s father) had transferred ownership of the apartment to his other daughters through a gift on August 5, 2021, after the challenged decision had been issued and after the writ petition had been submitted. The father was thus no longer the sole or absolute proprietor of the flat as of the court’s November 25, 2021 order.
Because of the gift deed, he no longer had any claim to the land.
The court added that the case’s conclusion would have been different if these details had been made public. The father and probably the other girls involved in the case knew that the information used to secure the court’s order on November 25, 2021 was fraudulent and erroneous.