Skip to main content

Rights of son in Ancestral Property

 What is Ancestral Property?

The term ancestral property refers to property that has been inherited up to four generations of male lineage. Thus, a property inherited by an ancestor from any of his paternal ancestors up to three generations above him, would be regarded as a part of the ancestral property for his legal heirs up to three generations below him.  However, an ancestral property no longer remains ancestral once it has been divided or partitioned by any of the previous three generations. Upon division or partition, the property becomes the self-acquired property of members of the generation that obtained a share upon its partition.

 


Ancestral Property vs. Self-Acquired Property

The rights available to a son to the self-acquired property are very different to that with respect to ancestral property. Therefore, to understand the rights of a son, it is important to figure out whether a property is ancestral or self-acquired. As explained above, the ancestral property is one which is inherited up to four generations of male lineage.


On the other hand, self-acquired property is one which has been purchased by a person from his own funds or acquired without the help of family funds through his own efforts. This also includes the share of a property acquired through a division/partition of the ancestral property.


Thus, the essential ingredients for a property to be regarded as ancestral is uninterrupted inheritance over four generations.


Consult: Top Property Lawyers in India

 


Rights of a Son in Ancestral Property and Self Acquired Property

Under the Hindu Succession Law, sons and daughters have been given the first right in the property if the father dies intestate (without leaving a will). In furtherance to this, they also have the right to acquire their legal share in the property. However, these rights in the property depends upon the property being ancestral or self-acquired.


When the property is Ancestral

Be it a daughter or a son, a right in the father’s ancestral property accrues by birth itself. Thus, as per the law, a father cannot Will such property to anyone he wishes to, or deprive a son of his share in it. A son has a right to inherit such property by the time of his birth itself.


A son is the joint owner of ancestral property and has the right to file a partition suit for his rightful share in the property. He has a right to ask for his share in the ancestral property during the lifetime of his father or grandfather or great grandfather, whoever is the ‘Karta’. Moreover, he has the right to sell his share to any third person before a formal partition of the property has taken place.


When the property is not Ancestral

In the case of a non-ancestral or a self-acquired property, the father has a right to gift the property or will it to anyone he wants, and the son will not have a right to raise an objection. However, after the death of the father, on a will left by him transferring the property or a share in such property to the son only can give any right to the son in such property. Also, if the father dies without leaving a will then the son and the daughter can claim an equal share in the self-acquired property.


Connect with an expert lawyer for your legal issue

 


Gifted property from Father to Son is not Ancestral

Property is not considered as an ancestral or family property in the event that it was gifted by a father to his son. In this manner, an individual cannot guarantee his share in a property that was gifted to his father by his grandfather. This is why a property that a son or a daughter receives as a gift from the father is considered as their self-acquired property. In such cases, the grandchildren have no lawful right in property their grandfather gifted to his son or daughter as he could have gifted the same to any third person as well. Such a property is considered as the self-acquired property except if there is an unmistakable expression of intention by the grandfather to make it an ancestral property.

 


Why do you need a Lawyer?

The intricate process of understanding succession laws and to figure out your exact share in your family’s ancestral property is a complex procedure which requires the services of a trained legal expert. Therefore, it is advised to engage the expertise of a lawyer who can guide you through the process and ensure your rights are protected at every stage. Hiring a lawyer can save you from a lot of hassle in the long run and ensure that you and your family reach a favourable outcome which reduces the risk of any litigation or friction in the future. This in turn helps save a lot of time, effort and money for you and your family.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more