If a person says that the property was purchased in the name of family members from the joint contribution of family members, then the person claiming the fact should prove it. Property that a Hindu inherited from his father, the father`s father or the father`s father by birth is called ancestral property. It is essentially the undivided property of a Hindu family of four generations. Ancestral property does not include property inherited from other family members. Property inherited from a maternal grandfather is treated as independent property rather than ancestral property. In Md. Hussain v. Kisheva (1937) and Maktul v. Manbhari (1938), they were confirmed (1958). During the division, the share allocated to a Koparzener loses its status as ancestral property and becomes independent property.

Property inherited from female ancestors must also be treated separately. Thus, Respondent 4 has the right to exchange and sell the property at will. At the end of the case, the Judiciary noted that the applicants, sons of respondent 4, could not have the right to prevent him from treating his self-acquired property in the manner he had chosen. The hypothec on the property does not create any rights in favour of the defendant 1. Although the definition of a parent in the case of a “HUF” has been extended to each member of the “HUF”, the above extended definition does not include the opposite case, i.e. in the case of a person who has not been mentioned as “HUF” in the list of parents. However, Ram Devi signed a deed of sale for his share of the property. This was challenged by the complainant as he claimed that Ram Devi had only a limited right to the share.

(ii) if, at the time of his death, the testator was the only surviving member of the coparzenar property, all his property, including the co-parazeties, shall be successively transferred to his heirs; II) Ancestral property is held by four generations in a common Hindu family. Therefore, the second criterion is that the member must come from one of the four generations after the original owner who kept it separately. The applicants stated that the property had originally been acquired by the father of the defendant 4 and that he had received his property from his father at the time of the division, so that it was an ancestral property of the applicants. The Appellant`s main reason was that S. Kesar Singh (grandfather of the Appellant`s husband) had acquired the property of the New Friends Colony from common family funds and the proceeds of the sale of the ancestral property and after S.`s death. Kesar Singh, the property in question, was acquired by the respondent from these ancestral funds, so that the property of the lawsuit is common family property in which the appellant also has a right of residence. Respondent 4 had pledged the disputed property to Respondent 1 as guarantor. The wife of respondents 3 of respondents 2 was also a guarantor. Respondent 1 was debtor 2 and respondent 4 was debtor 3. In addition, counsel for the appellant`s defence that the self-acquired property could not be divided during the owner`s lifetime is a mixed question of fact and law in the light of the family regulations of 23 December 1999, duly enforced and signed by the appellant, and required the appellant to provide evidence. Two conditions must be met to become Coparcener: I) At the beginning, a member must have received ancestral property from his paternal ancestor to be Coparcener. In the light of the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, the High Court held that, since the death of S.

Kesar Singh in 1977, the estate had been opened after the entry into force of the 1956 Act, so that there was no reason to state that the property in question was ancestral property or that the HUF existed. Sikkim High Court: If a father keeps his self-acquired property for mortgage purposes, can his sons interfere in the same? Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J. denied and explained that the sons had no right to prevent the father from treating his self-acquired property in the manner he had chosen. In addition, the word “possessed” was used in a broad sense without a Hindu woman having to be a real or physical possession of the property, and it would be sufficient for her to have a right to the property. Parliament`s intention was to limit section 14(2) of the Act to only two transactions, namely a gift and a will, which would clearly not include property received by a Hindu woman in lieu of alimony or in the event of division. Parliament`s intention to add the other categories to subsection (2) was simply to ensure that any transaction in which a Hindu woman receives a new or independent title in any of the ways referred to in section 14(2) of the act. A two-judge panel, consisting of Judges S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari, announced the decision in Arunachala Gounder vs.

Ponnuswamy. The Chamber rendered its decision on an appeal against an order of the Madras Supreme Court dismissing the appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 January 2009. The daughter was declared unauthorized to inherit this property by the Court of First Instance and the High Court. The property for the sole account of Sivasubramanian is the subject of this action. The plaintiff excluded the assets in his own name and wanted to keep them as individual assets that he himself had acquired and had claimed that they did not belong to the common family assets. Sivasubramanian`s daughters claimed that property “C” in the lawsuit was the property self-acquired by their father and that the property in Saravanan`s name was the common family property purchased in Saravanan`s name. According to the Parents and the Elderly Act, is it necessary to know whether the property belongs exclusively to the parents or whether it is a common household in which the daughter-in-law has rights? Bom HC decrypts paragraph (1) of section 14 of the said Act clearly states that it applies to real property acquired before or after the coming into force of the said Act. Any property so owned should be owned by it as a full owner and not as a limited owner.

Finally, the appellant argued that the single judge did not understand that self-acquired property could not be divided during the owner`s lifetime. He argued that the trial court had disregarded the fact that the action was a collusive action brought by the respondents to assert a fabricated claim in which the plaintiff and his brothers shared the lion`s share of the property. How does the widow`s inheritance tax (which is not in a son`s property) affect the deceased husband`s property? However, the type of inheritance was different for both. The complainant was granted absolute property rights equal to her share of land and property, while during her lifetime Ram Devi was granted limited ownership for her enjoyment compared to her share of the land with a specific provision that she could not sell, transfer or create third party rights in it. Thereafter, the property should return entirely to the complainant during her lifetime. The Supreme Court ruled that a Hindu man`s self-acquired property would be transferred by inheritance rather than inheritance if he died without a will, and that a girl would have the right to inherit such property, as well as property acquired through the division of a coparzenar or family fortune. In view of the above, the HUF was not included in the definition of the term relative in the Explanatory Note to Article 56(2)(vii) because this was not necessary, whereas in the case of the HUF, the members of the HUF are mentioned in the definition of the term `relative`. The High Court held that even if, for reasons of reasoning, the Court held that Respondent 4 had donated the house to the applicants, even in that case the transfer of ownership had to be set aside in certain circumstances. Since the deceased expired on 19.04.1991, it is necessary to see what the situation was in force at the time.