Remjoty Toory : “Zot Pran Mo Dibyen Apre Zot Maltret Mwa”


Remjoty Toory

Out of generosity, Premjoty Toory, 78, had surrendered her land and a house to his son so that he no longer had to pay rent. The septuagenarian alleges that once the goods were given, she was the victim of abuse. She therefore appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled in her favor by quashing the donation.

Do not abuse your parents, especially if they have given you important goods. In the contrary case, any donation may be annulled by the Supreme Court under the provisions of the Civil Code. An inhabitant of Riche Terre learned it at his expense. Today he finds himself stripped of land and a house that his 78-year-old mother, Premjoty Toory, had ceded to him. The Court annulled the donation made by the septuagenarian on account of ingratitude.

When she went to court, the resident of Terre-Rouge claimed she was being mistreated by her grandchildren and her ex-daughter-in-law. The septuagenarian went as far as the Supreme Court. “Mo impe deaf e mo ral pe ale. Me mo pa for the characters to dominate ar mwa, “she confides from the start.

Difficult past

In court, she was not afraid to face her son to whom she had “sold” a hard house located on land in Riche-Terre. “I took pity on him, his wife and his five children. My son did not make a lot of money. Li ti pe res dan lakaz lwe.” In 2004, Premjoty Toory sold the property to his son for Rs 285,000.

Except that in reality, this is a donation because she never took a penny from her son. The septuagenarian offered him a roof with the sole purpose of relieving him of the financial constraints of a rent. “I come from a very poor family. I have worked as a farmer since childhood and I did not want my children to suffer from misery, “she says.

Premjoty Toory remembers his years spent in the fields, from these decades of sacrifice to raising his four children, from a lifetime to care for a spouse with precarious health and recipient of a meager state pension . “We had to work hard to run the kitchen. Each laborer obtained his quota of rice. I earned six pounds a week. It was not easy to feed a family, but I never gave up. I wanted to give my children a better future, “says Premjoty Toory.

Thus she was led to help one of them, yielding to her a ground on which is erected a house of concrete. But the septuagenarian was far from suspecting that she would bitterly regret her mother’s generosity.

Sale “disguised”

Once this disguised “sale” was completed, Premjoty Toory would have become the target of his daughter-in-law and his grandchildren. She argues that they are mistreating her. According to him, they even go so far as to attack him. “Zot pran mo dibyen apre zot maltret mwa”, she deplores.

Premjoty Toory took her trouble in patience until she decided to end her ordeal. She had only one idea in mind: to recover her property. She filed a complaint in the Supreme Court on May 20, 2009. Eight years later, she was successful.

In arriving at such a conclusion, the Supreme Court had to establish, in the first instance, whether there had actually been a “inter vivos gift” or whether it was a sale. According to article 894 of the Civil Code, “gift inter vivos is an act by which the donor is presently and irrevocably deprived of the thing given in favor of the donee who accepts it”.

After examining the evidence submitted by all parties, the Supreme Court found that Premjoty Toory’s son could not afford to pay Rs 285,000 to the latter. She therefore concluded that the sale Was actually a donation.

It remained for the Supreme Court to consider whether this inter vivos gift could be revoked. In order to answer this question, the Court has again used the provisions of the Civil Code. Article 953 provides that “inter vivos gift may be revoked only on the ground of non-fulfillment of the conditions under which it was made, on account of ingratitude and on account of the occurrence of children”.

In reviewing the evidence in the prosecution case, the Supreme Court found that the 70-year-old had been the victim of abuse by her ex-daughter-in-law and her grandchildren. Reasons justifying the cancellation of the donation because of ingratitude under articles 953 and 955 of the Civil Code.

What do you think?

0 points
Upvote Downvote

Total votes: 0

Upvotes: 0

Upvotes percentage: 0.000000%

Downvotes: 0

Downvotes percentage: 0.000000%

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *





Flacq: Un Homme En Colère A Poignardé Sa Femme

Meutre De Flacq : Le Mari Se Suicide