Joint family property questions
Aaron Smothers
(Querist) 20 September 2011
This query is : Resolved
Hello,
this scenario pertains to a Hindu family.
Background:
-----------------
The elder father and mother both come from modest-to-poor backgrounds, with no inheritance from either side
father's income can barely make ends meet, let alone leave savings to acquire property
mother has never worked for wages, ever
They have a son and 2 daughters. One daughter gets married very young and leaves the house (to live in a different city altogether), the other daughter is unmarried for quite long, has a modest income (none enough to buy assets) and lives in the house.
The son gets a college degree, starts working when he is barely 20, for about 5 years in India, and then goes abroad to work. He works there for 2 decades. Several years after he starts working abroad, through his remittances, a flat is bought in India, BUT THE MOTHER IS NAMED AS THE TITLEHOLDER. (It is sold some years later, as mentioned below).
Question #1 : Is this flat legally admissible as a joint family property?
Some years later, the son, after more years of overseas work and greater savings, comes to India, and buys a plot of land and builds a house. The house is bought with his additional savings, pooled with the proceeds of liquidating the earlier flat mentioned above. This time, THE HOUSE TITLE IS IN HIS NAME, not in his mother's name.
Question #2: Can this house be claimed by the daughters and mother and father as a joint family property?
Background for question #3:
Around the time he buys the (second) house, he gets married. The couple mostly live abroad and visit India only for holidays. When they visit India one time, the son is hit with a terminal illness and dies after about a year.
He writes no will, and they have no childern. Mother and wife are alive, and are class 1 heirs according to Hindu law of intestate succession.
Question# 3: Is there a credible case for the daughters to posture the house as a joint family property and thereby dilute any share for the widow?
Much appreciate your insights! THanks!
ajay sethi
(Expert) 20 September 2011
1) the first flat bleongs to mother as it is standing in her name . the money he sent to his mother will be regarded as a gift .
2)in respect of second flat whether it stands in joint names or on son name only . ?
as far as second flat is concerned to the extent mother contributed her share towards flat purchase she can claim interest in said flat . whether money advanced by mother was shown as loan in income tax returns?
3) after death of husband the mother and widow are legal heirs . the mother can also claim to extent she contributed for purchase of flat not the daughters .
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 20 September 2011
To cut the long story short: The property in question is the self-acquired property of the deceased son. Only his legal heirs viz., mother and wife are the equal inheritors of the same. The sisters have no claim whatsoever. Nobody can stop them from claiming whatever that they want - but ultimately they will not at all succeed in their claim.
Aaron Smothers
(Querist) 20 September 2011
fantastic, I'm much obliged.
To clarify:
-- the first flat has been sold long ago, and its proceeds are being claimed to have been used towards buying the (second) house, which is the property under a partition suit now. The title of the house is held by the son--now deceased. (The joint property claimants are not listed as owners).
-- It is unlikely that the money advanced by the mother has been formally shown in tax returns, loan agreements or anything on paper. Just as informally as the son bought the first flat in her name, it was sold (with the requisite signatures), and the proceeds were used asa partial contribution to buy the house in the son's name.
-- I am fairly certain that there are no paper records or banking money trail showing the transit of the money from the mother's account (after she sold the flat) to the son's account (for use to buy the house).
Is it reasonable to demand it as proof that the lady's money was *actually* used towards buying the house? If it is, the posturing of the house as joint property is (in my view) considerably weakened.
The reality is that it has been the son's money all along, and if hard proof cannot be given that the proceeds from the first sale were used towards the second purchase, I will (from my personal angle) be happy not to have the unsupported widow have her 50% share according to Hindu law of intestate succession diluted any way.
Here in a nutshell is the position of the mother, afther and daughters:
-- the house is joint family property
-- the senior father is the 'karta' of the joint family
-- so the girls also have a share in the house
-- with the son dead, his share in the joint property (viz., 20%) devolves equally to the surviving mother (10%) and the surviving spouse (10%). So the widow gets 10% instead of 50%.
Instinctively, I detect that this is specious and contrived. I value your opinions on the legal admissibility of this line of argument, and in the end, how I can help the surviving widow to get what I think is her due share.
Thanks again, your insights have been terrific.
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 20 September 2011
From the facts revealed by you (that there are no formal documents to show that the sale proceeds of the house that was in the name of mother went into the purchase of the new house in the name of the son), the daughters can hardly succeed in proving that it was a joint family property.
It is for those who lay the claim that it is joint family property to prove that it was indeed a joint family property. Not for the widow (both mother in law and daughter inlaw) to prove the contrary.
Since the property is in the name of the deceased son, as already indicated only his mother and widow will inherit the property in equal share.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 20 September 2011
well if flat has been bought in son name from his own funds after his death wife and mother alone will have share .
Aaron Smothers
(Querist) 20 September 2011
Thanks again, Mr. Ramachandran and Mr. Sethi. I am encouraged to remain positive about a just outcome for the widow.
The earlier flat having been held in the mother's name throws a "googly" at us. Even if she herself did not have earlier assets or income capacity to have bought it, she could always claim it to be a gift from her son, as you pointed out earlier.
To offset our weakness from this state of affairs, we could put the burden of proof on them to convince the judge that the funds were indeed used as claimed.
In the absence of hard evidence to that effect, and in the larger context of the son being the only income/asset producer, I am hopeful that the decree will be issued in favour of the widow getting 50% (with the joint property claim being rejected).
Thanks again!
ESTHERPRIYA
(Expert) 26 September 2011
Self acquired property can be disposed by the owner in any way he likes. No one can question the same.
