Daughter's notice to her brothers asking for a share in father's property

Grand Father (GF) died intestate His heirs were 5 sons No formal partition of ancestral property amongst 5 sons ever took place All above 5 sons have since expired By mutual non-interference, 5 above sons & their families occupied 5 separate residences which in due course got registered in their individual names in local body's records for paying house taxes, but without any formal partition. One of the ancestral property is still in GF's name and the other in the joint name of 5 sons of the GF but in the physical possession of the eldest of the above 5 sons (F) & now in the possession of heirs of F. F's daughter D was offered the above property in GF's name but now in the physical possession of heirs of F. She said she did not have money to reconstruct it. No other offer could be made of already in use residence since extended and maintained at great cost by other sons. Without informing her younger brothers, she gave it away to the younger son S of her elder brother to construct a multi storied residence on it. Can daughter D serve now a legal notice only on her two younger brothers and only male heirs of the elder brother asking for her 1/4th share in F's ancestral property in the absence of any formal partition of GF's ancestral property? Are not all the 5 sons of GF and all their heirs a party to any request for formal partition of ancestral property in the physical possession of F but without any formal partition amongst 5 sons of GF (with residence currently held in F's name, Storage building in GF name and the other land in joint name of 5 sons of GF). And if yes, what should be the legal response of the 3 brothers to such a notice from D? Can the daughter insist only the residence, though part of ancestral property but since held in local body's records in Father's name, be legally partitioned amongst 4 heirs of Father F to the exclusion of other ancestral properties earlier in the physical possession of Father F and now his heirs ignoring that no formal partition of the GF's ancestral property ever took place. Should not any notice of partition from D necessarily be sent to all the heirs of GF as no formal partition of the ancestral property took place and mere physical possession may not give the possessor a right to transfer further a valid title. Limiting the partition amongst heirs of F to only residence held in F's name but without it formally coming to F after a formal partition would be inequitous as the sons currently residing there have since spent large sums over years to extend and maintain it. Cannot the lawyer of D told that his notice was defective unless served on all parties involved, viz., All heirs of the GF to first formally partition the ancestral property as it cannot be limited to one residence only.Can partition of ancestral properties in physical possession of F, one in his name, one in GF name & one in joint name of 5 sons of GF, be legally limited by D to first of these against wishes of 3 sons