The property purchased by Mr. Prashant in 1996 will not automatically become HUF property merely because the purchase money came from his share of ancestral property. Once ancestral property is partitioned and a coparcener receives his defined share, that share becomes his separate/self-acquired property, unless he clearly throws it into the common hotchpotch of a new HUF. There is nothing in your narration to suggest that Mr. Prashant treated this property as HUF property after purchase. On the contrary, the facts point the other way: he purchased it in his individual name, executed a Will dealing with it as his own property, and specifically recorded that his sons were separated and earning independently. This is a strong indicator of self-acquired property.
Because the property was held and dealt with as an individual asset, the Encumbrance Certificate correctly reflecting the name of “Mr. Prashant” (and not “Prashant HUF”) supports the conclusion that it was never treated as HUF property. In Karnataka, when property is clearly recorded as HUF property, revenue records and ECs usually reflect the karta/HUF description. The absence of such a description strengthens the individual-property argument.
As regards the sons, Mr. Rakesh and Mr. Prakash do not have any surviving legal claim over the property. First, the property was self-acquired. Second, Mr. Prashant executed a Will giving only a limited life interest to his wife. Third, after his death, the sons themselves gave no-objection for khata transfer in favour of their mother, which amounts to conduct acknowledging that they were not asserting ownership. Fourth, Mrs. Prashant, as absolute owner after the life interest (or at least as a person with testamentary power), executed a registered Will in favour of her daughters, which was acted upon in 2005. That Will has never been challenged. Finally, the daughters sold the property in 2013, and the title has since moved to a third party. At this distance of time, any claim by the sons would be hopelessly weak, both on merits and on limitation.
The practical problem you are facing—non-availability or unknown whereabouts of the sons—is a banking risk issue, not a pure title defect. Banks often insist on Consent-cum-Confirmation Deeds from sons as a matter of internal policy whenever ancestral funds are mentioned in the chain, even if the law does not strictly require it.
Where the sons cannot be traced, the usual alternatives are:
a detailed legal opinion/title certificate clearly explaining why the property is self-acquired and why no consent is legally required;
a declaration and indemnity from the present seller (Mrs. Uma) indemnifying you and the bank against any future claim from the sons;
reliance on the sons’ earlier NOCs given at the time of khata transfer to Mrs. Prashant, if copies are available;
in some cases, a public notice in newspapers calling for objections, followed by completion of the transaction if no objection is received.
There is no legal mechanism to compel consent from persons who are untraceable or possibly deceased, nor is such consent mandatory in law in a case like this. If the bank remains rigid, you may either negotiate acceptance of indemnity and legal opinion, or consider another lender with a more pragmatic approach.
In summary: the property is not HUF property; the sons have no subsisting legal claim; the EC supports individual ownership; and the demand for consent is a risk-management requirement of the bank, not a statutory necessity. A strong title opinion coupled with indemnity is the correct way forward where consent deeds are impossible to obtain.

1) After partition, Mr Prashant’s share became his self acquired property. The property he bought in 1996 is not HUF property...

2)Since it was his individual property, the Encumbrance Certificate showing only Mr Prashant’s name is correct. HUF would normally be shown differently...

3)The sons have no legal claim. Mr Prashant had full right to make a will. After the wife’s life interest, the daughters became owners and validly sold the property in 2013...

4) bank is asking for consent only as a precaution. If the sons cannot be traced, a consent deed is not legally required. An indemnity bond, title affidavit, and public notice are commonly accepted alternatives...

1. Though this may not fall under HUF category, if the property partitioned between brothers was ancestral property then the transfer of the property purchased out of sale proceeds of share of ancestral property would be shared among Prashant and his children consisting of two sons and two daughters, however if they have either got a share out of the consideration amount or have relinquished their rights by executing a registered release deed, then the transfer of property by Prashant to his wife by a Will will be treated as legally valid.

2.. This is not HUF property.

3. If the conditions mentioned in the first point above is satisfied then their claim may not be maintainable.

4. You can send a legal notice to their last known address through your lawyer and proceed as per your lawyer's further advice.

No it will be self acquired property

if it’s illegally transferred then only there will be a legitimate claim else not 

yes you can take consent deed

It is not ancestral property 

2) sons have no share in property 

3) ask seller to obtain consent deed from them 

4) in alternative execute an indemnity bond to indemnify you in event of third party claims 

Dear Sir,

Dear Sir,

Detailed Answer to each of your question:

1. Whether the Property is HUF Property?

No. This is the most crucial point.

Property purchased by a coparcener from his share received after partition of ancestral property becomes his SELF-ACQUIRED property.

Answer to Q1:
NOT HUF property. It is self-acquired property of Mr. Prashant.

1. Encumbrance Certificate – Should HUF Be Reflected?

Practice:

• If property belongs to HUF, title documents typically mention:

• “Mr. X, Karta of X HUF”
• Or “X HUF represented by its Karta”

Your Case:

• EC shows “Mr. Prashant” only, not “Prashant HUF”.
• Sale deed (1996) is in individual name.

Conclusion:

• EC is correct and consistent with individual ownership.

Answer to Q2:
No HUF notation is expected or required. The EC is legally correct.

1. Do Sons (Rakesh & Prakash) Have Any Claim?

On Mr. Prashant’s Death:

• Property was self-acquired, so succession is governed by:
  Section 30, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Will overrides intestate succession).
• Mr. Prashant executed a Will (1998) giving:

• Life interest to wife
• No power of alienation

• Sons consented to khata transfer in favour of mother (strong estoppel).

Subsequent Chain:

• Mrs. Prashant executed registered Will (2000) → daughters.
• Daughters became absolute owners after her death (2005).
• Property sold in 2013.
• Limitation for challenge expired long ago.

Legal Effect:

• Sons are estopped by conduct + limitation + consent.
• No surviving right, title, or interest.

Answer to Q3:
No enforceable claim whatsoever.

1. Bank’s Demand for Consent-cum-Confirmation Deed – What If Sons Are Untraceable?

This is a banking risk practice, not a strict legal requirement.

Why Banks Ask:

• Fear of remote future litigation
  
• Mechanical checklist approach

When Sons Are Untraceable — LEGAL ALTERNATIVES:

Option A

Indemnity Bond + Affidavit

• By seller (Mrs. Uma)
• Sometimes co-signed by buyer
• Covers future claims, if any

Option B

Title Opinion + Legal Due Diligence Certificate

• From senior advocate
• Clearly stating:

• Property is self-acquired
• Sons have no subsisting rights
• Consent deeds unnecessary

Option C

Public Notice

• In one English & one Kannada newspaper
• Calling for objections within 15 days
• No response → presumption of no claim

Answer to Q4:
Consent-cum-Confirmation deed is NOT mandatory; lawful alternatives exist and are routinely accepted.

*****

1. It would be self acquired property of Mr. Prashant 

2. Yes. Had the property been a HUF property, the khata would reflect so 

3. It depends whether or not they have accepted the Will of Mrs. Prashant. If they are disputing her Will, then they can claim a share on intestate succession of Mrs. Prashant. So assuming Mrs. Prashant died leaving behind 4 children only as her only surviving legal heirs, the sons would each claim 25% share on intestacy. The sons can also put up a claim that the property is HUF. It is for that reason that the bank has requisitioned the consent affidavits of the sons. 

4. I'd like to know when did the daughters of Mrs. Prashant sell the property to Uma? If more than 12 years have elapsed since the sale, the sons would have a bleak case to claim, provided they don't set up a case that they learnt about the transfer and sale to Uma only recently. 

In my view the bank's requisition is valid. 

The only option is to switch the bank and apply for loan from some other bank. 

Public notices inviting objections against the sale in your favour can also be given. 

Dear client,

The property will not be considered HUF. Since the partition had already taken place and Mr Prashant had received his defined, individual share. It is important to note that there is no document that shows that this property is HUF property.

Also the EC shows the name of Prashanth if it was HUF it would have shown as Karta of HUF as well. 

It is important to note that his sons do not have a legal claim with regard to the property since there is a valid will which does not vest interest with the sons. Now Mrs Prashanth has also made a valid registered will in favour of her two daughters in which case there is no question of consent required from the two sons since they do not have any kind of vested interest in the property. 

I hope this answer helps. For any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact us. Thank you.

It is necessary to peruse documents cited by you to advice 

the sake deed mentions property is sold by seller as karta of HIF 

karta can sell HIF propery for a "legal necessity" or "benefit of the estate,"

Your latest post confirms that the property was purchased for and on behalf of the HUF  by its karta.

In the given situation the Will bequeathing the entire property in favor of his wife by Prashanth itself is error and invalid because all the children of Prashanth are entitled to an equal share in the HUF  property, therefore the bank is right in demanding the consent or NOC from other legal heirs of Prashanth.

The title seems to be defective to your vendor hence it is not advisable to pursue the sale of this property without obtaining a proper legal opinion from an experienced lawyer in the local.

The averments of registered sale deed is binding 

Uma's title appears to be defective

Mrs. Prashant was not bequeathed the property exclusively but was given only a life interest

from your query it cannot be ascertained who is the ultimate beneficiary of the property under Mr. Prashant's Will

if there is no beneficiary named then the property will devolve as per intestate succession and all the 4 children of Mr. Prashant would have equal undivided share in the property 

So all the more it is necessary to ask your seller to trace the sons of late Mr. Prashant in order to get their NOC or make them as confirming parties in the sale deed to be executed in your favour

to complete, the definition of buyer in the sale deed under which Mr. Prashant bought the property acting as karta of his HUF, makes things all the more complicated and thus unless and until the NOCs of the sons are not forthcoming it would be risky to put your hands in this property 

When Mr. Prashant purchased the property describing himself as “Karta of his Hindu Undivided Family (HUF)”, the law presumes that the acquisition was made on behalf of the HUF and for the benefit of the coparcenary. Even if the funds came from his share received on partition of ancestral property, once he chose to purchase the new property in his capacity as Karta, it is treated as having been thrown into the common hotchpotch and acquired as HUF property. Courts give significant weight to how the purchaser describes himself in the sale deed, as it reflects his intention at the time of purchase.

Because of this description, the property is legally treated as HUF property and not as Mr. Prashant’s individual self-acquired asset. Consequently, both sons became coparceners by birth and acquired vested rights in the property immediately. Mr. Prashant could not, by Will, bequeath the entire property to his wife; at best, he could deal only with his own undivided share in the HUF. Similarly, the later Will executed by Mrs. Prashant in favour of the daughters could operate only to the extent of whatever lawful interest she held. The sons’ earlier no-objection for khata transfer does not extinguish their ownership rights, as revenue entries are not documents of title.

The Encumbrance Certificate showing only Mr. Prashant’s name does not override the sale deed’s clear recital of HUF capacity. In practice, revenue and EC records often do not correctly reflect HUF ownership, but courts rely primarily on the sale deed and the surrounding circumstances.

Legally, therefore, the sons continue to have a valid coparcenary claim, and this is the reason the bank is insisting on Consent-cum-Confirmation Deeds. It is a risk-management step rather than a mere formality.

If the sons are untraceable or their whereabouts are unknown, there is no simple statutory mechanism to bypass their rights. The usual practical routes are obtaining their consent (which is the cleanest solution), pursuing a declaratory civil suit to settle title (which is time-consuming and uncertain), or attempting to proceed with strong indemnities and public notices if the lender is willing to accept that risk. Many banks, however, do not.

In practical terms, once the sale deed records the purchaser as Karta of HUF, the property carries inherent title risk unless the coparceners’ interests are cleared. Proceeding without their confirmation exposes a buyer to potential future litigation.

In summary, the “Karta of HUF” recital converts the property into HUF property in law; the sons have subsisting legal rights; the EC entry does not negate this; and the bank’s demand for consent is legally justified from a risk perspective. If consent cannot be obtained, the transaction should be approached with extreme caution.