Can a man will his ancestral turned self-acquired property ?

Same story repeated time and again as found from your profile as

 

this topic / query Can a man will his ancestral turned self-acquired property ?

posted a new topic in forum Can husband give his ancestral property to his wife through replied to a topic in forum Widow's rights in deceased husband's ancestral property

posted a new topic in forum Widow's rights in deceased husband's ancestral property replied to a topic in forum Family property settlement done leaving out 1 brother

posted a new topic in forum Family property settlement done leaving out 1 brother replied to a topic in forum Can a person have 2 wills for 2 separate properties

posted a new topic in forum Can a person have 2 wills for 2 separate properties

More 

It is better to consult and engage a local prudent lawyer for better appreciation of facts/ documents and professional advise.

Moderators should filter such repeated questions to save the valuable space in the forum and time of members as some members are playing games asking repeated queries.

There are some misconceptions about Ancestral property, the legal definition of ancestral property is : " An ancestral property is a property that should be four generations old and should not have been divided or partitioned by the previous three generations for the property to qualify as your ancestral property." In the present instance the property is not an ancestral property hence the query is unfructuous.

Yes, the  facts do not suggest the property to be ancestral.

respected sir.. divided property from father is self acquired (or) coparcenary property?

What do you mean by "divided property from father"? Please post facts, not adjectives.

respected sir. Grand father bought 2.5 acre agriculture land in 1959 He had 3 sons 1daughter He died in 1967 with out making will In 1975 partition deed was made between 3 brother & 1 sister & grand motherMy father got 1/3 share ( Sister, mother did not want share) Now my father had 3son, 2 daughter. My father made a will in 2002 this 1/3 part in favour of his sons only. He died in 2010.Now my sisters asking share through court. Lower courts(taluk&district) gave judgement in favour of sons. But madras H C reversed this judgement saying coparcrners, coparcenary property Now what we can do?

Right of heir in joint Demat ac - no Nomination no WILL Respected Expert sir, My father and his brother ( A & B) hold a joint Demat account in which shares worth Rs. 15 lakhs is held. My Father ( A) died without a NOMINATION, without a WILL. I am the only child of my father. ( Son of A) . Now my uncle (B) is not willing to give me half the share of the shares held in the demat account, saying that I am not entitled to shares in the joint demat account of my father. He is saying "He is not legally bound to give any holdings to the the legal heirs of the expired joint holder", and his stand is "Upon death of a joint holder in a Demat account, the whole holdings in the joint Demat account becomes the sole property of the surviving holder in the Demat account" Please advise me can I claim half of the shares held in the demat account please ? Respected experts, please advise me am I not entitled to the half the shares held in the demat account? My humble thanks

respected experts please answer my question(siddeswaran)

Mr. DEshik: Please post the query in a separate thread. Mr. Siddeswaran: The facts posted suggest the property not to be ancestral. What is the reason relied on by the High Court to hold the property to be ancestral? Can you provide the Case No. so that the High Court Order could be perused.

second appeal No 992 of 2015&MP 1 of 2015 in High court of Madras Sir please look in this judgement by Justice MM Sundresh

I could not access any such decision by Justice MM Sundresh. The High Court website reveals a decision by dated 27/09/2019 by Justice Justice R.Subramanian. In fact there is no Judgment but only that the Appeals were dismissed as withdrawn in view of the compromise among the Parties - "Mr.R.T.Doraisamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in both the Second Appeals would seek to withdraw these Appeals and he has made the following endorsement: “Matter settled between parties. Second Appeal Nos.992 and 993 of 2015 may be dismissed as withdrawn.” 2. In view of the same, these Second Appeals are dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.”

Respected Venu Sir, First I thank you for help& suggestion. Second Appeal is SA 922 / 2015 is correct one (I put 992 / 2015 is wrong one, By typing in number mistake is commited plz excuse me) Now I kindly request you look in this I am waiting for your valuable suggestion and assistance

K. Siddeswaran

It is seen that that the High Court had given the following finding: "Thus both the Courts have committed a fundamental error that the property acquired by a divided Hindu family son from the joint family shall become his absolute property. This proposition of law may be correct insofar as no children are born. If the children are born to him, they become coparceners and the properties would become joint family properties. Unfortunately, this principle, though appears to be rudimentary, has been omitted to be looked into by the Courts below." The decision is without any basis in facts and is contrary to the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. On facts, the grandfather had purchased the property in 1959, i.e. after the enactment ment of the Hindu Succession Act. He had died in 1967 and partition took place in 1975. Thus, the property was self acquired property and never joint family property The succession as regards to this property shall be governed by the provisions of the 1956 Act. Section 4 of the Act provides that it overrides all the existing law. "4. Overriding effect of Act. Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, (a) any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu Law or any custom or usage as part of that law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall cease to have effect with respect to any matter for which provision is made in this Act; (b) any other law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to apply to Hindus in so far as it is inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in this Act Hence the partition that taken place in 1975 is governed by the provisions of and Section 8 - "8. General rules of succession in the case of males. The property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter (a) firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in Class I of the Schedule; --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------" In the instant case, the property has devolved upon the Class I legal heirs, viz. the wife and children (with the daughters and their mother relinquishing their share). And Section 19 provides that the heirs take their properties as tenants in-common and not as joint tenants. "19. Mode of succession of two or more heirs. If two or more heirs succeed together to the property of an intestate, they shall take the property, (a) save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, per capita and not per stirpes; and (b) as tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants. Further, Section 30 provides for testamentary disposition of the property "30. Testamentary succession. Any Hindu may dispose of by will or other testamentary disposition any property, which is capable of being so disposed of by him or by her, in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), or any other law for the time being in force and applicable to Hindus." Thus decision of the High Court is inconsistent with the provisions of Hindu Succession Act and a catena of decisions of the of the Apex Court and various High Courts - Uttam vs Saubhag Singh & Ors, Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur and Others v. Chander Sen and Others, (1986) 3 SCC 567. It has been laid down that - - On the application of Section 8 of the Act, either by reason of the death of a male Hindu leaving self-acquired property such property would devolve only by intestacy and not survivorship. (vi) On a conjoint reading of Sections 4, 8 and 19 of the Act, after joint family property has been distributed in accordance with section 8 on principles of intestacy, the joint family property ceases to be joint family property in the hands of the various persons who have succeeded to it as they hold the property as tenants in common and not as joint tenants.