it is not ancestral property
2) there is no merit in the case
3) wife and children of son 1 have no share in the property
4) you have good case on merits
Ancestral property, partition, and selling minor property without consent
Dear Sir, My uncle died in 1996 , he was having agricultural land admeasuring 7.5 acrees, he( uncle) had acquired this land thru inheritance from his father in 1960. My uncle has 3 sons ( son1 , son2 and son3) and one daughter. The eldest son(son1) acquired the entire 7.5 acre land thru inheritance in 1996 after the death of my uncle thru inheritance certificate from GramPanchayat. These three sons of my uncle seperated in 2001 thru a partition and each on of them acquired 2.5 acres of land, the daughter willfully denied any share in the property. I bought agricultural land admeasuring 2.5 Acres from son1 which has been alloted to him in the partition. The purchase was done thru a duly stamped and registered sale deed on which all 3 sons signed( April 2002), someone suggested that we get sign of all 3 sons even though the land belonged to son1 after partition and we followed. Please note that the sale deed was signed only by 3 sons and not by their wives and no court permission was taken while doing this sale deed. Later in 2011 , wife of son1 and his 4 children filed a suit ( Regular Civil Suit) in the court where they've stated that their father has sold this "ancestral" land without their knowledge or permission from the court and they want to reclaim their share from this ancestral property. They've also mentioned that at the time of the sale the children of son1 were minor and wife is illitrate so they could not find out that the deal has happened and now the children have become major so limitation is not applicable to them and his wife is the guardian of their 4 children. They've also mentioned in the suit that there was a partition amongst their father and his brothers i.e. between son1 , son2 and son3 of my uncle in 2001 and the land that was sold (2.5 Acres mentioned above ) belonged to their father and husband ( son1 ) in the said partition. Since there is a considerable appreciation in the land cost , the son1 his wife and children have now conspired to reclaim the land with malicious intent by fraudulent means. Son1's Children age in 2011( at the time of filling the suit) 1) 20 Years 2) 16 Years 3) 12 Years 4) 9 Years Could you please answer dollowing questions a) What is the merit of the case? B) Does this land qualify as "ancestral" property. b) Do the wife and children of "son1" have any right in this land ? If they do, how much share belongs to them.(Please note that other sons are also having 3 children each.) d) The case is going on in the court and currently in "argument" stage , What are the chances of me winning this case? Thanks. Regards, CM
Asked 6 years ago in Property Law
Religion: Hindu
First answer received in 30 minutes.
Lawyers are available now to answer your questions.
7 Answers
Dear Ajay Sethi Sir, Could you please explain why and how is it not an ancestral property and why the wife and children do not have any share in this land.
Asked 6 years ago
1) property which has remained undivided for four generations is ancestral property
2) in the present case 3 sons of uncle had divided the land by partition deed on demise of uncle
3) hence it is not ancestral proeprty
4) for sale of land consent of wife and daughter was not required
Dear Client,
Property devolved through 4th generalization without being divided and partitioned, is of course ancestral.
Hope inheritance is straight without any partition and WILL.
At the time of partition between brothers, children of son 1 were born than partition is not valid.
a) What is the merit of the case ? --- Great grand son have share in G G father`s property,
B) Does this land qualify as "ancestral" property. -- acquired by great grandfather which has been passed down from generation to generation up to the present generation without being divided or partitioned and GGS were born before partition. than it is.
b) Do the wife and children of "son1" have any right in this land ? If they do, how much share belongs to them.(Please note that other sons are also having 3 children each.) -- Wife have no claim. 10th share each in total land, or 1/5th in sold 2.5.
d) The case is going on in the court and currently in "argument" stage , What are the chances of me winning this case? -- Show case file.
1. The claim by the four sons of the vendor who sold this property to you is not maintainable becasue they do not have any rights in the property that their father was an absolute owner who acquired the same by virtue of partition deed.
2. This will not qualify as ancestral property.
3. The wife or his sons do not have any rights in the property.
4. You have to ask your lawyer who prepared the argument and conducted the case so far.
Could you please explain why and how is it not an ancestral property and why the wife and children do not have any share in this land.
Because acquired this property by a partition deed drawn among his own brothers.
After the partition deed, he becomes an absolute owner of his share of hi sproperty.
Also their father's father inherited the property from his father, therefore there is no question of the property devolving in the same status for three generations which is the criteria to qualify for ancestral property
Ancestral property is that property which is undivided and jointly hold by 4 generation of male ancestors.
So in your case if the uncle received property from father it may be inherited not necessary ancestral.
As there can be partition at time of death of grandfather between wife and children it was not jointly owned if uncle had title.
I don't find merits in case it is just filed to abuse process of law.
The sons donot have any right in property if it doesn't qualify as the ancestral property.
The uncle inherited the property he has sole right the property was not jointly owned. And it was divided through the partition.
I see a fair chance of you winning this case.
Please eleobrate more facts specifying detail of property as when and whom.it was acquired and when were the earlier partitions took place.