Ancestral or self-acquired property
X sold his property to Y in 1964 via registered sale deed
Y have not taken possesion and not transfered khata on his name.Y died in 2005.
X in 2011,partitionined joint family properties with his brother,in the partion deed property which is sold to Y is also written as share to one of his son along with other properties.
Y's legal heirs transfered khatha on their names by RRT proceedings by claiming Y death certificate in 2012 and sold to Builder A via registered sale deed.
X died in 2012 by leaving behind 3 legal sons.One of the son to whom 2011 partion deed gives right about the property sold to Y filed case against builder and Y's legal heirs saying 1964 sale deed is void.
Evidence he showed to court:
in 1930,X and his brother mortgaged sold property to Z for 600,so X' legal heir released mortgage in his favour and claimed that even X and Y not acted according to 1964 sale deed,they felt that its like mortage deed,hence y have not taken possession.
He further claimed that X got his property from will by his forefather.Will copy is not there with builder.Case is settled out of court and case is withdrawn,builder has taken X's legal heir consent in one of the deed's.
Question i have is:
1)In future is there any chance of X's legal heirs claiming rights on the property by saying its an ancestral property?
2)Only X's son whom got sold property as per 2011 partion deed given consent,his legal heirs not given consent even though they are majors. is this property comes under ancestral property?
Asked in Property Law from Bangalore, Karnataka
Firstly the partition deed including the property already sold in the said deed is invalid. However since the plaintiff has withdrawn the suit from the court, you must see that on what grounds he had withdrawn the suit. This had been the practice of few unscrupulous anti social elements to harass and torture the genuine buyers in many laces including Bangalore. Even if some other legal heir is coming up with a claim in the later stage, you may have to challenge that situation too, we cannot predict what can happen and when.
Better ask the builder to exercise safety precautions properly in this regard.
1) it was self acquired property of x and not ancestral property
2) since x inherited property as per father will it would not be ancestral property
Thanks Kalaiselvan sir for your reply.
Plantiff and builder did a comprimise and settled with some money. Builder filed a comprise memo saying plantiff is not interested to continue as other plantiffs died and he dont want to press further.
Builder keep saying me that it was a frivoules case nothing to worry as X family do not have rights over the property as they have valid sale deed.
my question is even 1964 sale deed happened when mortage is not cleared at that time. is this sale deed valid as per law when mortgage is prevelent on that property?
1964 sale deed status according my lawyer is inherited,however builder says it came to X via unregistered will. if sale deed says inherited as per law, Can X's son legal heirs claim rights on the property? will law favoures them?
Asked 2 years ago
Thanks all of your valuable replies.
Mortagage is registered deed.Its now released but the release deed conveyed back to X thats why X's legal heirs produced this document as evidence.
Yes in 1930 syno 1 is put under registered mortgage by X's father. However during their family partion syn 1 is bifericated to syn1/A and syno 1/B.
Syno 1/A came to X and it was sold to Y. Now mortgage released/reedemded in 2005 reflects that enire syno 1 is released from mortagage.
Builder is confident that no issues will come and they do not have rights. He is ready to give indemnity clause in sale deed for security in future. Will this indeminity clause will really help for me in future ? with adding indeminity clause in agreement shall i go ahead with purchase of property.
Please suggest if anything not in line with law.
Asked 2 years ago
1) once sale deed is executed by X duly stamped and registered Y would be absolute owner of property
2) X could not have executed partition deed in 2011 in respect of said property . What x did was took full advantage of fact that Y had not transferred property in his name till his death nor took possession
3) builder compromised in order to put an end to ligation process and not because he had a weak case
4) if as per sale deed property was inherited by X he could sell the property to Y
Inheritance or acquired through a Will makes no difference if the dispute is about claiming the share in ancestral property.
What about the mortgage redemption subsequent to sale execution?
whether the mortgage was registered or unregistered?
The claim of legal heirs will depend upon how they prove themselves eligible with documentary proof and for such frivolous people, it will not be possible to prove the same is the defendant is vigorously contests and challenges the claim made in the suit. After one prolonged stage stage the plaintiffs will disappear if they find that this is not going to fetch their desired goal.
The purpose of filing such false suits is to rattle the issue and to avail the wrongful gains to the extent whatever possible, therefore there is nothing to worry even if they mae any claim in the future, he same can be challenged properly.
1. Absence of possession does not invalidate the sale made in favour of Y by X. If the property sold to Y was under mortgage at the time of the sale the only person who could have laid a challenge to the sale is the mortgagee and none else as an interest was created in his favour alone.
2. If X got the property through inheritance he was well within his right to sell it to anyone he desired. The property cannot be termed as ancestral.
3. After the sale to Y he became the owner of the property, which after his demise has been inherited by his heirs.
4. X's legal heirs have no right to claim the property.
1) you should contact a local lawyer
2) obtain certificate that title is clear and marketable
3) indemnity clause will protect your interest in the event any claim is received in respect of property
4) since it is not ancestral property consent of x son legal heirs not required
Indemnity clause incorporated in sale agreement will alone not hold guarantee the same should be endorsed in the registered sale deed document too.
Whenever the mortgage is redeemed, the redemption will be done in favor of the mortgagor only and not on the present owner because until and unless the mortgagee has not been informed about the sale transactions orany such assignment the fact of mortgage on the property will continue to remain till its redemption, but since the same has been released in their favor in the year 2005, they cannot claim the ownership or title because the previous sale transaction is valid and legal and binding on the vendor and subsequently on his heirs.
The builder can furnish indemnity against the future losses if any.
I reiterate the the sale of the mortgaged property can be challenged only by the mortgagee. If the mortgage was cleared after the sale or the demise of X this does not entitle the legal heirs of X to challenge the sale. Indemnity clause should be sufficient to allay the fears of the purchaser as it can be enforced against the builder.
1. When the property has been settled by the successors of X in writing, then it no longer stays as an ancestral property. So, X's legal heirs an not claim any right on this sold and settled property any more,
2. During the life time of X's son, his wife, sons and daughters can not claim any share on his property. So, their signature/consent is not required for dealing with that part of the property which is claimed by X.
1. Get the settlement deed registered to make it legally enforceable,
2. The legal heirs of the son of X can not claim right on the property since the son of X has settled it in favour of the builder.
1. Indemnity bond registered by the builder will assure your getting back the money you are paying to buy the property,
2. The property seems to be O.K. to be purchased, if the other aspects in connection with the property are also O.K.