Ancestral property division
To give a brief background on the situation.
My great grandfather owned two pieces of land - one where we have a shop (S), another one where we have our house(H).
He had 3 sons. All of them have passed away. These three grandfathers (G1,G2,G3) had - 4, 3, 3 sons (G11, G12, G13, G14, G21, G22, G23, G31, G32, G33)
G1 and G2 have died intestate without any will. So 25 years ago, in presence of G3, a document was drawn up. It divided the S property.
15 years ago, G21, G22 and G33 divided the property again. In this case the division happened on both S and H. There was also an additional property (H1 and S1) owned by G2 which got divided.
Here where things get confusing. There were two parties instead of 3 - G21 + G22 vs G23
The division document divided property as such:
Property S - 50% to G22 and 50% to G23
Property H - 100% to G23
Property H1 and S1 - 100% to G21
5 years later, there was another division but between G21 and G22:
Property S - 25% to G21 and 25% to G22
because G21 claimed the document said 50% to him and G22. The "and" being the stressed upon word.
So question becomes - Is it possible to divide an already divided property? Also, H was still undivided between G1, G2 and G3 heirs so did G21 et al had the authority to create such a division paper?
Things got even confusing this year. After an internal strife everyone wants to divide H. The document prepared says that 33% each has been given to "heirs of G1, G2 and G3" respectively. Now they want G21, G22 and G23 to divide the H between them. Again is this a valid way to do things? I divide a property between "heirs of someone" who is not alive and re-divide it again?
There is talk of dividing S again (after a gap of 25 years). In which case what is the validity of document signed by G21, G22 and G23, specially given they have signed off properties which is technically not divided yet.
The problem I am facing is, as son of G22 (who has passed away in 2008) I am being forced to honor the deal. As things stand it was quite a raw one and my father had done it trusting his brothers. For now I am not ready to accept this new division but I am being threatened with a case.
Asked 9 years ago in Property Law
Religion: Hindu
1. The terms of partition 25 years ago by G3 was - 33% to "heirs of G1", 33% to "heirs of G2" and 33% to G3 of the property S only. It was not registered rather an oral partition. Thing to note here is H was not divided at that time.
2. The partition 15 years ago is documented but not registered. Though even if it was registered, what is the validity? The reason being - it talks about giving and receiving property in a yet undivided H (and then S too). Could my father and his brothers divide a property for which their share has not been given or even assigned?
3. Mutation was not done.
Though current partition of H raises a question on mutation.
I have received paper for the partition deed of H which says "33% to heirs of G1" and "33% to heirs of G2" and "33% to heirs of G3". Now that G1, G2 and G3 are no longer alive, how valid is this kind of partition. Even if it goes through I cannot legally mutate something in my name.
To actually do a mutation another partition deed will need to be signed on the previous deed saying - "11% to G21, 11% to G22 (though as a heir to me) and 11% to G23". Then only some property can be mutated in my name. So is it valid to do such partition deeds, one after the other?
4. All legal heirs were involved in these previous partitions.
Asked 9 years ago
