Property got from "will" is deemed self acquired property

I do not have the energy to go through the avalanche of words. In support of my original contention I attach herwith an article.

Mr. MPS Ramani seems to have under estimated Mr. Jigyasu to the most extent. He should not have started fire, if he was unable to bear with the heat of his own ignited fire.

If a scholar, he should have behaved like a serious & cultured scholar, not merely a fun seeker by keeping the experts on a testing position. He should better try to nderstand and maintain the distinction between a legal expert and a non-legal person.

 

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by : Dr. MPS RAMANI Ph.D.[Tech]
	I do not have the energy to go through the avalanche of words. In support of my original contention I attach herwith an article.

 

@ Dr. MPS Ramani,

So, you have the energy to go through the contents worth 43 pages of your referred article, BUT NOT the energy to go through a small matter of merely about half of a pagem, which shows your own image like a mirror?

If you don't have the energy to read contents of about half a page, what sort of wisdom you have tried to show by expecting others to waste a lot of time in reading the contents of your recommended article spreading in 43 pages? It seems, as if your super sense is worse than even the commonsense of a layman. A doctorate level candidate can rely on copied material for his thesis, but not me, who believes in original ideas.

 

Originally posted by : Ramesh Singh
	Ha! ha! ha! Debate on outdated thread to claim as expert? No one is expert here.

 

@ Ramesh Singh,

Good revelation about yourself! Are you a fake consultant, if no one is expert here?

However, your statement aptly fits on you, as your post clearly reveals lack of self confidence even in yourself!  So, what for you are consultant, if you are not expert in any field?

@Legal Analyst  Dhingra   Please reconcile to me between what Legal Analyst Jigyasu says and the underlined sentence in the attachment. I am a scientist. If you express an opinion on something that I said, I look at only what you said and not at whether you are a scientist or not. I said something. Jigyasu wanted me to quote chapter and verse in support of my statement. I could not get. I have attached now what I got. What next?

I do not want you to read 43 pages. Read only the first sentence. What is original and what is copied?  Water is a mineral. It is original just because a Supreme Court judge says so.

@Ramesh Singh:  I am not an expert. At least I am not an expert on LAW.

Dear Dr. MPS Ramani,

The matter is between you and Mr. Jigyasu. If you started some controversy with reference to his views, you have to satisfy him about your stand. He seemed to have asked you to quote some section of relevant law in support of your contention. But, instead of making quite a brief reference of the relevant section of law, as revealed from your latest post, you preferred to refer an article worth the contents of 43 pages to be gone through.

I believe he has not asked you to refer to some other person's views expressed in a very long article in support of your contention. The irony is that even you have not taken the trouble to pin point, which specific part you wanted to refer for the information of Mr. Jigyasu, the querist and the other readers.

However, on cursory glance, I could find the one sentence, underlined with red colour, which states, "A person cannot give his ancestors property in the form of a Will but he can make a Will only of his Self-Acquired property."

If you intended to refer to this specific part of the article, apparently, you have virtually proved true the the statement of Mr. Jigyasu, which states "A doctorate level candidate can rely on copied material for his thesis, but not me."

Here is the difference between your understanding, as a layman and that of a legal expert. In the context of this brief statement, before making your post, you were actually required at first to know, which property is actually called ancestral property and which is self acquired property. Ancestral property if already acquired by sharing between the legal heirs or through a will the status of that property does not remain as ancestoral property.

 

Thanks Mr. Dhingra, for so much explanatory descripttion, but, where was the need to make a turotial for some PhD level scholar. In fact some people do not even feel the need to understand that even copying reqires some wisdom to be used for proper interpretation, specifcially in field of law.

Let him live and be happy with his own contentions.

 

 

An ancestral property is property which you from your ancestor.  If ancestral property is shared among descendants, the share of each descendant is ancestral property with him. He cannot distribute his share among his descendants as he likes. Ancestral property can pass through generations.

Originally posted by : Dr. MPS RAMANI Ph.D.[Tech]
	An ancestral property is property which you from your ancestor.  If ancestral property is shared among descendants, the share of each descendant is ancestral property with him. He cannot distribute his share among his descendants as he likes. Ancestral property can pass through generations.

 

Dr. MPS Ramani,

VERY WELL SAID. Your perception is really humourous !!!!!

Now it is my turn to ask, do you think the human beings would develop themselves in to the shape of ants to live in the space of centimeters sometime in future?

Could not you think, when the ancestral property goes on passing through several generations, at one time the descendants would be able to get just a few centimeters or even millimeters of the space of ancestral property each generation after generations! Naturally the selling of such ancestral property would also not be possible, as that has to pass from generation to generation. SO ACCORDING TO YOU, THE SALE OF SEVERAL LAKHS OF ANCESTRAL PROPERTIES SO FAR WOULD HAVE BEEN ILLEGALLY TRANSFERRED.

ACTUALLY, HAD YOU BEEN AT THE POSITION OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE LAW COMMISSION, YOU WOULD DEFINITELY HAVE GOT THE OPPORTUNITY TO MODIFY THE LAWS AT YOUR OWN WHIMS & FANCY.

 

@ Mr. Dhingra,

So, have you now understood, what is the type of the scholar, whom you tried to make aware of the law by striking your head? I suppose, even his own PhD Thesis would have been plagiarised, without much of his own realistic perceptions.

If possible, he may fail even Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution of the species.

Let him live with his own pervceptions. 

 

 

Do not stoop low and make personal comments. Stick to the question. The question was: Whether inherited property can be willed or not. I am not a lawyer. I do not claim any deep knowledge of law either. Much of my knowledge is gained by participation in this forum and from the internet also. The general impression I got from the messages of experts in previous posts here, is that inherited estate cannot be transmitted further through will. Self acquired estate can be willed. The acrimony here was started by some individuals with my statement regarding inherited assets vs. self-acquired assets. When I do not understand a statement I ask question, so that I can gain knowledge. But instead of giving me a satisfactory reply, one of the self-styled experts challenged me to quote section in law to support my ‘contention’. I pleaded that I am not a legal expert. I did not question the qualifications of the expert. When the dialogue was going on another expert entered the arena and took up cudgels on behalf of the first expert. Both started congratulating each other. Coming back to my question, one of the participants asked me quote laws and sections. I came here to learn. But here one is throwing a challenge at me. But as I am not a lawyer still less a practising lawyer, I could not get the answer. But I got the opinion of another legal expert in the form of an article. But the experts here won't accept it. For the experts it is their contention. For me it is whether I should accept this expert or that expert. Why should I accept that the experts here know better than the author of the article? The inheritance laws of most of the Hindus were originally derived from scripttures. Broadly there were two systems: Mitakshara and Dayabhaga. They are believed to be handed down from Manusmriti and Yagnavalkyasmriti. Manusmriti mainly dealt with family matters such as marriage, status of women etc. Yagnavalkyasmriti dealt with property rights. Incidentally Yagnavalkya was also the author of Thraitreya Upanishad, which contains Briguvalli, a scientific treatise on the nature of God or rather Godhead, far superior to the philosophies of all other religions except Buddhism. I do not want to divert into that topic. The types of property the Smritis deals with are two namely Sthavara and Jangama. Sthavara are immovable such as land and buildings. Jangama are properties like cows, cash etc. There is also a third type of asset namely jewellery about which I shall mention later. Properties are transmitted down through generations of expanding joint families. The properties were jointly owned and the rights of individuals were not delineated. When joint families become large and unwieldy or when disputes arise, partitions take place into smaller joint families. At that stage the property of each resulting joint family has to be defined. • Sthavara properties remain static and do not get consumed. They get passed on to the next generation. But Jangama properties like cows and cash get consumed during the lifetime of individuals and there cannot be any restriction on preserving and transmitting to descendants. When families divide through partition there will be assets which are indivisible or there can be disputes for sharing the assets. Under such situations the asset will be sold and the proceeds will be shared among the claimants. In other words Sthavara becomes Jangama. Jangama can get consumed among the heirs of the Head according to needs from time to time. For instance women had no property rights, but the cash obtained by selling of capital assets can be used for marriage expenses or dowry of a daughter. When an individual is alive, the undivided share of the inherited property of his heir is already determined. He cannot will it away to someone else. As regards jewellery, they are individually owned by women of the joint family. They pass them on to their female descendants. There used to be disputes also. Members ganging up, one taking up cudgels one on behalf of the other, saying sabash to each other, making the dialogue tarnished with personal invectives do not enhance the prestige of the concerned individuals. If possible, contribute knowledge and not invectives.

@ Dr. MPS Ramani,

Good copying skill., Of course! I can guess, your PhD thesis, if awarded by some Indian University and not checked by some plagiarism software, could also be at least 50% plagiarised than being made original.

Anyway, you may feel free to live with your own assumptions. However by your theory, one day all the property of India would become ancestral property by the change in generation by generation, including that bought out of inherited property.

 

Hi Sirking 79,

Not understood, whom you addressed your post, i.e., the querist, Kumar Doab, Advocate Bhartesh Goyal, Advocate Sidharth Srivastava, Dr. MPS Ramani, Mr. Jigyasu,  Mr. Ramesh Singh, and for which of his article? At least for me, it was a vague discussion for a vague but simple issue, which can only confuse the readers.

 

This fellow nick named "JIGYASU" claims himself as a "Legal Analyst"
For his various posts, it seems that he is here only to Criticise & Ridicule other expert participants.  
This fellow nick named "JIGYASU" never provides any answers to any queriest and only keeps on twisting his perverted words.  
BEWARE OF HIS FRUSTRATION & NEFARIOUS HABIT.

Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal