Legal right
Guest
(Querist) 01 February 2014
This query is : Resolved
I got married to my husband in 2006. From day one my husband & his family members started harassing me for bringing less dowry. After a year my husband has throw me out from matrimonial house with my son. I field two cases in court against my husband and his family members i:e Domestic violence act & CR.P.C 125. Both the cases are pending in the court & my husband is not ready to keep me.
Query:- My grand father-in-laws purchase a property in 1970’s .He died in 1990’s without leaving any will. My grandfather-in-laws left behind two son & two sisters. In 1998. My father-in- law & his brother got registered that property on their names by taking N O C from their sisters.
My query:- Now above said property is on my father-in-laws name can, I claim right of my son in the said property.
2. Can I put partition suit against my father –in -law on behalf of my son
3.What is my legal right in said property
ajay sethi
(Expert) 01 February 2014
no . it was self acquired property of your grand father in law . you cannot make any claim against your father in law for share of your son . you have no right in said property .
your best bet is under Dv act . you have right to stay in matrimonial home or you can ask for alternative accommodation
malipeddi jaggarao
(Expert) 02 February 2014
Agreed with Mr.Ajay Sethi. Concentrate on the present case.
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 02 February 2014
I differ.
this is a ancestral property. Your son is having the right over the property.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 02 February 2014
Author sir,
As per my information in India marriage in same sex has not been allowed or you have changed the sex. You have posted 4-5 queries posing as you are a male and in this query you are marring with your husband as a female. Your name also shows, you are a male. Unable to understand how this problem is of yours.
Better come out with real problem in-spite of wasting the time of others.
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 02 February 2014
Mr.Goyal,
Many of the queriest, do not give correct information. Or they raise query for others.
Some raise the query for fun or knowledge sake.
Biswanath Roy
(Expert) 02 February 2014
Yes, your son has right title and interest in the said property. Because, your father-in-law inherited the said property from his ancestor i.e.,your grand father in law.
Yes, you can file partition suit on behalf of your son as guardian mother.
Yes, you have right of residence in your matrimonial house.
Lastly, I need mention here that as an expert we are supposed to answer the query only whosoever the quarist may we bother little.
R.V.RAO
(Expert) 03 February 2014
as opined by sri arunagiri and sri B.roy, your son has interest and claim in the property which is ancestral for him. you may make a claim for your minor son .
but as daughter in law you have no claim IN THE PROPEERTY.
only your husband being a living natural and FIRST CLASS legal heir has a claim on the property of your FIL.
AS DIL,YOU have already rightly put D.V case.pusue the same.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 03 February 2014
Querist has not cared to reply the questions raised.
Guest
(Expert) 03 February 2014
Are you Mr. Ganesh or the wife of your husband?
The problem does not seem to belong to the querist.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 04 February 2014
This querist is repeatedly changing his identity for the reasons best known to him/her.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 05 February 2014
Firstly I would like to respectfully disagree with the some experts opinion that author's son has a share in the property purchased by her (his) grand father in law in the year 1970. This property upon the purchaser's intestate death devolved upon his legal heirs, which was duly partitioned between the two male legal heirs of the deceased that too after obtaining a proper release deed in their favor. Now the share of the property so inherited by author's father in law becomes his own and exclusive property, therefore it is not an ancestral property neither the author's son is having any coparcenery rights in the property, therefore she (he) cannot seek partition on that basis.
Now I too have my own doubt about the author whether it is he or she(?)
R.V.RAO
(Expert) 05 February 2014
hi.sri kalaiselvanji. ,
it is an interesting position now,
with 3 of our LCI members feel it is ancestral property while 3 feel not an ancestral property(with ref. to the great grand son of the owner of property)
mostly we all agreed DIL may pursue only dv case.
how about the poor great grand son?
only out of my professional curiosity i wish to know as how to conclude this(property whether ancestral or not)?
any case law or precedence?
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 05 February 2014
One thing we have to agree, the author he or she is making us to exchange our knowledge.
R.V.RAO
(Expert) 05 February 2014
yes a lot of exchange of ideas.but how to conclude the issue with a reasonable degree of certainity.
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 05 February 2014
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5475 OF 2013
(@ SLP (C) No. 22388 of 2011)
ROHIT CHAUHAN …APPELLANT
VERSUS
SURINDER SINGH & ORS. …RESPONDENT
Page 14: - in the present case, it is an admitted position that the property which defendant no. 2 (father) got on partition was an ancestral property and till the birth of the plaintiff (son) he was sole surviving coparcener but the moment plaintiff was born, he got a share in the father’s property.
In the above case, the supreme court clearly says that on the property of X (Grand Father) given to his Y (Father), Z (grand son) is having the birth right.
I think, the above case law suits to the query of the author.
I welcome comments from other experts also on the above subject.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 05 February 2014
the issue in above case was father on partition received ancestral property.
page 14 of SC judgement clearly mentions that issue in above case was that father received on partition ancestral property .
in the present case admittedly it was GRANDFATHER SELF ACQUIRED PROPERTY . ON HIS DEATH IN 1990 PROPERTY RECEIVED BY SONS WOULD BE SELF ACQUIRED PROPERTY OF SONS .HENCE IN MY VIEW DAUGHTER IN LAW CANNOT MAKE ANY CLAIM FOR SON ON ABOVE PROPERTY . SHE CANNOT FILE SUIT FOR PARTITION ON BEHALF OF HER SON
ajay sethi
(Expert) 05 February 2014
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on : 24.09.2007
CS(OS) 944/2004
MASTER GAURAV SIKRI & ANR. …….Plaintiffs
- versus -
SMT. KAUSHALYA SIKRI & ORS. ……..Defendants
Hindu succession Act sec. 8 order of succession = In the personal/ self acquired property of Grand father, No Grand son can file a suit for partition against his father as the property fell to the father is his personal property and as the grand son is not the class I heir = A serious objection to the maintainability of the suit has been filed by the grandchildren of late Sh. Vilayati Ram Sikri in the life time of their father.= The present suit has been filed by Gaurav Sikri and Khushal Sikri, who are both minor sons of the defendant No.2. The suit has been filed through their mother Smt. Neha Sikri.= as per the averments made in the plaint late Sh. Vilayati Ram Sikri was the owner of the suit properties- on the death of late Sh. Vilayati Ram Sikri his heirs succeeded to the same as per the law of succession. In view of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the plaintiffs would not fall in the category of Class I heirs and only their father (defendant No.2) would be entitled to inherit CS(OS)944/2004 Page No.3 of 8along with his brothers, sister and mother. = In view of the preamble to the Act, i.e., that to modify where necessary and to codify the law, in our opinion it is not possible when Schedule indicates heirs in class I and only includes son and does not include son’s son but does include son of a predeceased son, to say that when son inherits the property in the situation contemplated by Section 8 he takes it as karta of his own undivided family. – late Sh. Vilayati Ram Sikri was the owner of the suit properties and that upon his death the same were inherited by his legal heirs. That being the case, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Wealth Tax Commissioner v. Chander Sen (supra) would be clearly applicable and, therefore, the plaintiffs being the grandsons would not have any share in the property left by late Sh. Vilayati Ram Sikri during the life time of the defendant No.2 (Rajesh Sikri). Consequently, the plaint, on the basis of the averments made therein, does not disclose any cause of action and the same is accordingly rejected.
Biswanath Roy
(Expert) 05 February 2014
Although I LEFT THIS CLUB yet I take it a preivelege to intervene in your conversation in as much as I opined on this query earlier. In continuation to my earlier opinion and in connection thereto I FURTHER STATE THAT No.1 The property in question is an immovable property as defined in sec.3 , clause 25 of General Clauses Act,1897. No 2.
Ancestral Property or Ancestral estate means
A property that is acquired by descent or by operation of law with no other consideration than that of blood.Further two different citations were placed by Learned Mr, Arunagiri and Mr. Ajoy Sethi to substantiate their respective claim. Learned Mr. Sethi referred a case disposed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of MASTER GAURAV SIKRI & ANR. VS.SMT. KAUSHYALLA SIKRI & ORS. Case No.CS(OS)944 OF 2004 and Learned Mr. Arunagiri referred a Judgment made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the Matter of ROHIT CHAUHAN VS. SURINDER SING & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NO.5475 9F 2013 arising out from S.L.P (C) 22388 of 2011. Significantly the Delhi High Court case as referred to above by Learned Mr ARUNAGIRI is a case under HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 on the basis of the preamble of the Act and following Schedule 1 of the said Act. Beside, as it transpires it is a statement of law in the said judgement so it is ' ' OBITER DICTUM 'which was not submitted directly as a question before the court, Secondly the Judgement was delivered long before the Judgement made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court WHEREAS the Judgement delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is a RULE and made recently and in the year 2013, HENCE.i REITERATE MY EARLIER OPINION IS CORRECT AND I AGREE WITH THE VIEWS OF Mr. ARUNAGIRI. Mother by her representing capacity on behalf of her child can file a PARTITION SUIT following C.P.C but not otherwise.
Guest
(Expert) 05 February 2014
Mr. Arunagiri,
With reference to your post, "one thing we have to agree, the author he or she is making us to exchange our knowledge," I am to say that there is no objection to the exchange of knowledge, whatsover, irrespective of whether the querist is he or she. But, the querist must be honest to pose his real and genuine problem before the experts for solution.
The present query states, "I got MARRIED TO MY HUSBAND in 2006. From day one my husband & his family members started harassing me for bringing less dowry," etc., while according to his earlier two queries of a year ago, the querist is paying maintenance allownce of Rs.1200/- for wife and Rs.800/- for minor child and he is not interested in paying maintenance, as the queries state:
"MY WIFE filed a case 125 cr.p.c for maintenance two years back. Court passed interim order for Rs.1200/- for wife and Rs.800/- for minor child. I have been paying the said amount regularly."
You may like to see the whole of his earlier queries at the following links:
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/Maintenance-allowance-283641.asp#.UvJHF_tWr8S
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/Again-filing-of-Maintenance-allowance-287866.asp#.UvJBDvtWr8S
According to his present query, HER HUSBAND THROWN HER OUT from matrimonial house with HER son, while the from the spirit of his previous query, HE SEEMED TO HAVE THROWN HIS WIFE out from matrimonial house with her son."
So, I am unable to understand, for whose problem he posed the present query, for himself or for his estrnaged wife whom he does not want to pay maintenance, even for his child and trying to use the experts as his tools to hoodwink someone else in a bid to get share of some other's property or to deny maintenance allowance to her wife, as his early query clearly denotes.
So, just imagine, why the experts are made to make long discussions to fulfill his hidden intentions?
THE IRONY IS, HE IS KEEPING MUM OVER MY QUERY OF 2 DAYS BACK AND HAS NOT COME FORWARD TO CLEAR HIS POSITION.
Had he desired to ask the question merely to acquire some knowledge, he could well have put his question in the forum section.
Of course, I don't have any objection, if you or other experts still want to continue impart knowledge to such type of a cheating fellow.
Biswanath Roy
(Expert) 05 February 2014
@ Mr. Dhingra,
With due respect I am sorry to say we are not concerned with the gender of the querist or his/her motive behind the query we are concerned with the legal query and its merits and demerit only. Be that whosoever he or she is , we shall deal the query with proper legal views and its maintainability in the eye of law so let us confine ourselves accordingly. At least it will give us a chance to refresh or revise our acquired knowledge and to enhance our knowledge further to some extent.
R.V.RAO
(Expert) 05 February 2014
excellent exchange of professional opinions.am really glad to read and assimilate such vast case law and knowledge sharing.
finally we take it as ancestral property whereby the great grand son has right ,title and claim and his mother can go ahead to ask for a partition suit for the property against her FIL.
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 05 February 2014
It is true, that our learned experts are very strong in their stands (including me), no body can say, which is correct or incorrect, when there is no clarity in law, we have to make our own interpretation.
I had a nice time to chat with my colleagues.
so, let us treat this query resolved.
Biswanath Roy
(Expert) 05 February 2014
The differences of opinion amongst experts arises because they have no microscopic eyes to understand the meaning of the query. Secondly,they are not sufficiently strong in interpretation of law and its proper application. Thirdly method of studying a case law is erroneous and defective. In query no. 2 the querist asked experts whether she can put partition suit against her father in law on behalf of her son i.e., she enquired about her legal authority for filing partition suit. In dealing the said question Learned Mr. Ajoy Sethi relied upon a Delhi High Court case which was disposed on the question of law of inheritance under the Hindu Succession Act.For Partition of an ancestral property one should follow Code of Civil Proceedure for filing a civil suit. Besides , studying case laws lacks knowledge of 'OBITER DICTUM ' and 'RULE' and its applicabilty.
Guest
(Expert) 05 February 2014
So, the stand seems to be like helping manipulators and imposters by a few experts, may that harm the interest of some innoscent person against whom the advice is sought in disguise. A noble stand!
Biswanath Roy
(Expert) 06 February 2014
@ Mr. Dhingra,
Your comment is unfortunate, because,-
No.1 It is difficult to know the personal character or motive of a querist.
No.2. Do you mean to say an imposter is not eligible for medical or legal help?
No.3. How we shall come to know that the querist shall use our legal opinion against an innocent person ? Will you please clarify it by your valued opinion?
Guest
(Expert) 06 February 2014
Mr. Roy,
My comments may look unfortunate to you and even to some other experts, but may look to be genuine to several others. I could also have replied to his query, but I did not prefer to help someone whose intentions are doubtful.
If you go through my earlier query, "are you Mr. Ganesh or the wife of your husband?" and that "The problem does not seem to belong to the querist," simply meant caution to the experts just to point out that some imposter has come to the fore with some fake problem. Not only the name, itself, of the querist denotes, either he is imposter or making fun of the knowlege of experts, but also I tried to caution my community members again by providing two links of his earlier queries.
So, in spite of that if you try to overlook the facts even on specific hints, your own comments as well as queries aimed towards me prove to be unfortunate.
Still on your continuing with the thread even on my specific hint, as I could understand, that seemed nothing except to specifically declare your knowledge to be much more superior than Mr. Arunagiri and Mr. Ajay Sethi.
I can well understand the spirit of competition amongst a few of the experts by demonstrating their knowledge to be superior than the others. I believe merely in rationality. I would have been pleased had you shared your superior knowledge for some just cause, as the experts are not here to hold tutorial classes for the imposters. I believe, the experts here are supposed to devote more on specific problems of genuine querists, not the imposters.
However, if you intend to impart training to one and all on account of your experience, I won't have any object.
A simple question arises, when the querist is a layman, how you considered him to be so expert to understand the intricacies of what you quoted to declare the Mr. Arunagiri and Mr. Ajay Sethi, as wrong, and how that could help the imposter to assimilate the case to his benefit, when he was not an advocate and was not going to present the case personally in the court of law.
As a layman he (she)needed very simple answers tp his/her queries, (1) whether she could claim right of her son in the property of her father-in-law; (2) Could she put partition suit against her father –in -law on behalf of her son; and (3) What was her legal right in said property?
He (she) never sought goodh gyan through case laws, as you have quoted just to prove the two experts to be wrong.
I wonder, if your stand is merely to justify your ignorance about the facts in spite of my clear hints with spcific, and if not aimed to disgrace Mr. Arunagiri and Mr. Ajay Sethi.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 06 February 2014
i do not take offence of any comments made by senior expert MR Biswanath Roy . in any case this query has helped experts in free exchange of views .
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 06 February 2014
I am also having the similar feelings of my friend Mr.Ajay Sethi.
I once again repeat we the learned experts are sharing our knowledge in this platform.
We the advocates are learning fresh every day, through new cases, new comments, and new case laws.
At the same time, I agree with the point raised by Mr.Dhingra, that some of the querist use this platform for their fun. But, it is too difficult to find who has raised real query and who is raising funny query.
Mr.Dhingra is a senior member and is actively participating in responding to the queriest. He is giving solutions to the querist. So, the comments posted by Mr.Dhingra is a right opinion, as for as the genuinity of the query, I endorse the same on this point.
Mr.Roy, the god has given as knowledge and power to help the needy people. Your knowledge and experience is needed not only for the querist and also for the other experts including myself.
Anirudh
(Expert) 06 February 2014
The decision in Rohit Chouhan vs. Surinder Singh proceeds on the basis that the property was ancestral in the hands of the grandfather of the plaintiff. Therefore, when partitioned between the father and his three sons, the son (i.e. father of the plaintiff) who was a bachelor at the time of partition would be holding that property as his personal property. However, the moment he got married and the son (plaintiff) was born, the property became a coparcenary property.
In MASTER GAURAV SIKRI's case as pointed out by Mr. Ajay Sethi, the property to begin with was the personal property in the hands of the grandfather of the plaintiff.
That is the huge difference between the two cases.
The fact situation in the present case is similar to the one in Master Gaurav Sikri's case.
Further more, one has to note that prior to coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the property a male gets from his father, grand father or great grand father was 'ancestral property'.
However, this position stood drastically altered with the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Only that property which had already acquired the ancestral character prior to 1956, (i.e. the property should have come to the hand of a male from his father/grandfather/great grandfather) will retain its ancestral character even after 1956.
In other words, if there was a self acquired property of a male prior to 1956, but the same gets inherited/partitioned subsequent to the coming into force of HSA 1956, then the property in the hands of the receiver/inheritor will be his PERSONAL/SEPARATE property and not ancestral property.
In the instant case, the property was stated to have been purchased by the grand-father-in-law in the year 1970. That was inherited by his son (i.e. father-in-law of the querist) subsequently. The property in the hands of the father-in-law is his personal property and not ancestral property.
Therefore, nobody can lay any claim to the said property, during the life time of the father-in-law. Further, in case the father-in-law makes any testamentary disposition (gift, will etc.) then that will prevail. Only in the event the father in law dies intestate, then the property will go by way of inheritance to his legal heirs (one such legal heir being the divorced husband of the querist).
I agree with the answer of Ajay Sethi.
Anirudh
(Expert) 09 February 2014
Is there any counter point to my above post?
ajay sethi
(Expert) 09 February 2014
thanks for your valued opinion MR anirudh . I had received lot of adverse comments on my stand that it was not ancestral property .
R.V.RAO
(Expert) 10 February 2014
thank all experts for sharing their expertise. i have yet to come across inLCI such a vast exchange of ideas.we respect all their feelings also.after all we r all birds of same feather and flocked together.
Anirudh
(Expert) 10 February 2014
Dear Mr. Rao,
Thanks for your post.
I do not mix up feelings while discussing hard core legal issues.
In fact what you call as 'sharing of expertise by experts', I feel it is 'exposure of one's non-expertise'.
It is still beyond my comprehension, and very hard to get over the statement:
"our learned experts are very strong in their stands (including me), no body can say, which is correct or incorrect, when there is no clarity in law, we have to make our own interpretation. I had a nice time to chat with my colleagues."
Does not the above statement completely forgets that we are answering a query from the querist? Does the querist has raised the query to facilitate the experts to have a nice time to chat with their respective colleagues?
How can anybody answer a query, especially when one claims there is no clarity in the law (which contention itself is wrong); and that too strongly?
Again how can anybody say that no body can say, which is correct or incorrect?
Are we then reducing the querist to a gambler - without knowing which way the dice will fall?
Is the basic law, so unclear? If that be so, is it not the responsibility of the expert to first say so that there is lack of clarity in the law, as there are conflicting decisions in the matter and also to cite at least minimum two case laws where there are conflicting decisions?
It is also seen that some expert has gone to the extent of saying: "The differences of opinion amongst experts arises because they have no microscopic eyes to understand the meaning of the query. Secondly,they are not sufficiently strong in interpretation of law and its proper application. Thirdly method of studying a case law is erroneous and defective."
In the LCI, where answers like "I also agree" has been defended as the right way of confirming to the querist that the answer given by one expert is correct, I expect the experts to review their earlier replies and to state what they now think.
Till then, I do not think the querist will be any wiser by the answers (including mine) so far given, as I sincerely feel that he has been left in the lurch - highly confused than he originally was. That was not what he expected from we so-called Experts.
Guest
(Expert) 10 February 2014
So as a lay man my self I would prefer to know from learned mr.anirudh how a query should be answered and more over i would prefer to ensure all the answers to the querists from Mr.Anirudh would fetch 100% results so that I would quit
Guest
(Expert) 10 February 2014
The word "so called experts'"from Mr.Anirudh ensures he is the one and only Expert in Lci so I would prefer to know since other so called Expert I am only talking about my self is of no use I would prefer to know how many high court cases the officially called Expert Mr.Anirudh had won so that I could learn a lot from him
Anirudh
(Expert) 11 February 2014
Dear Mr. Rajkumar, as you claim yourself to be a layman, I take your words on face value, without any confrontation.
Please note legal opinion/view is different from litigation.
Legal opinion is indicating the legal position as it is.
Litigation is combating what is confronting you.
There is a vast difference between the two.
I do not understand as to what is the connection with winning court cases to do with rendering legal view/opinion. In this aspect, I admit, I am a layman.
I do not know where from you got the idea that I (Anirudh) is the one and the only expert in LCI?
If anyone is working on one's own false assumptions, I am sorry, I cannot help it.
Anirudh
(Expert) 11 February 2014
Dear Mr. Rajkumar,
You say that you would quit. Your quitting would not help this LCI. Rather, if each one of us quit the habit of trying to answer a query where one lacks expertise, that would be a great service to the querist in LCI.
Guest
(Expert) 11 February 2014
I endorse the views of Shri Anirudh.
However, it has become clear that this query page has become the fighting arena for the experts.
As I guessed earlier the querist seems to be enjoying well this fight as of making fun of the experts. He has not yet come with his clarification for the last 7 days, with which my doubt has proved correct that "the problem does not seem to belong to the querist."
From his earlier queries it is quite clear that the present query hints towards the property of the father of his thrown out wife, but by posing her query to be his own query he just wanted to know some escape route for him from paying the maintenance for his wife and son.
I request the experts to try to identify such type of imposters before replying quries.
Guest
(Expert) 11 February 2014
Once Again I would Request Mr.Anirudh to post the replies directly to the Author with out making comments on other Experts so that even I would mind my own with out interfering
Biswanath Roy
(Expert) 11 February 2014
I shall request Mr. Anirudh to be a rational Expert in replying to the queries and must refrain from doing unethical comment touching dignity of other experts. Comments over the opinion of the other experts deviating from professional discipline carries some other meaning to the querists.
Anirudh
(Expert) 11 February 2014
Dear Mr. Roy,
I think it is too late in the day for you to sermon as to what I should do.
Should I remind you that it was you who said: "The differences of opinion amongst experts arises because they have no microscopic eyes to understand the meaning of the query. Secondly,they are not sufficiently strong in interpretation of law and its proper application. Thirdly method of studying a case law is erroneous and defective. .... Besides , studying case laws lacks knowledge of 'OBITER DICTUM ' and 'RULE' and its applicabilty."
Do you mean to say that the above is an ethical comment by you?
Anirudh
(Expert) 11 February 2014
Dear Mr. Roy,
Still we are on the periphery and nowhere near answering conclusively the query posed by the querist.
You have not confirmed yet, whether you still stand by your earlier answer, after my post.
Biswanath Roy
(Expert) 11 February 2014
Senior Advocates are being regarded as the GUARDIANS OF THE BAR AND Junior Advocates pay them proper respect and behave accordingly even when we appear before the court to mention anything we get the first chance and Juniors wait till the Senior ends. In my practice life I EXPERIENCED THIS ETTIQUETE in Calcutta High Court, Bombay High Court, Madras High Court, Rajasthan High Court, Jabbalpur High Court at M.P. and Cuttack High Court. Besides this I SAY I AM AN OLD MAN OF 84 YEARS can't I expect that my Junior brother EXPERTS will give me same respect which I deserve. If I am wrong tell me frankly why you differ with me but it should not be in the nature or form of a comment directly or indirectly in the public platform which looks bad for the profession.
Anirudh
(Expert) 11 February 2014
Dear Mr. Roy,
Nobody would deny the respect which you richly deserve. But at the same time, you should also, commensurate with your age and experience, follow the etiqutte which you expect from others, which so far you have failed to do, as pointed out by me.
If you are wrong, why do you want that to be pointed out privately?
R.V.RAO
(Expert) 11 February 2014
with all respect to our seniors like sri b.Roy, and with best wishes to all our professional colleagues of LCI,AND WITH PERMISSION OF ALL OUR PROFESSIONAL FRIENDS HERE IN THIS FORUM,MAY I REQUEST AND BE PERMITTED TO SEEK THE MODERATORS OF LCI TO DECLARE THE THREAD / QUERY AS CLOSED?
