Coparcenary with father and grandfather

If It is grand fathers self acquired property his sons or grand sons dont get any share, he has right to dispose it as per his wishes, if he dies intestate his sons will inherit not grandsons, they can claim as joint family property not as ancestral property.

Thanks Shashi Dhara. I am 100% certain that it is not self acquired property, so the grandfather is not able to dispose of it through a will. It is undivided ancestral property.

You first of all ascertain that how your grandfather acquired this property, if he had got it through a family partition or if it is self aquired properpty then it will not fall into the ancestral category.

Thus you can revert with the details of the origin of the property in order to understand the eligibility of share to different coparcerners (if there are any) subsequently.

As per your geanological tree, this appers to be your grandfather's own and absiolute property hence no opinion can be rendered without ascertaining the facts 

Thanks T. Kalaiselvan.

The evidence of ancestral categorization I have, while slightly convoluted, is the following:

• In addition to this land, there was another piece of land bought by my grandfather. I will refer to this additional property as Property B. I will refer to the property in my original query as Property A.
• Property B was purchased using income generated from Property A.
• At some point, my grandfather sold a portion of of Property B as separate property.
• A suit was filed by Son 1 and Son 2 claiming this sale as separate property was improper since Property B is joint property due to it being purchased by income from Property A, which is ancestral property.
• The district court ruled in favor of the sons. The following are excerpts from the judgement
  • "[Grandfather] filed a written statement as, it is true that [Property A] is ancestral property and [Property B] is in the name of [Grandfather] also purchased from the income of [Property A]. It is stated as [Property B] is joint family property, and [Son 1, Son 2, and Grandfather] are each having 1/3rd share of the property".
  • "In the result, the suit is decreed as, [Son 1 and Son 2] having each a 1/3rd share in the property and [Grandfather] having 1/3rd share in the property. The schedule of property is to be read as [Property A] plus [Property B]."

I understand that last quote says 1/3rd share, but the Grandson 1 and Grandson 2 were not made aware of the suit, nor included in the suit as plaintiffs. I contend that if by definition Grandson 1 and Grandson 2 are coparceners, we should have been included in the suit.

I will try to ascertain more details about how my grandfather acquired this property.

If your grandfather admitted in the court that this property was ancestral property and has also admitted that both his sons are entitled to one third share in the property along with himself, then the distribution or division of proeprty shall be between the grandfather and two his sons only.

Now comes the question of coparcenary rights by the grandchildren in the ancestral property.

It is very simple that the grandchildren can claim coparcenary rights out of their respective father's share in the property alone and not in the entire property. Thus they have to fight for heir entitled share in the property out of their respective father's share in the so called ancestral property only and not beyond that. 

Hope this makes clear the point of clarification sought.

Don't misinterpret law to your convenience and get confused.

The tone and tenor of your postings suggests that you are seeking validation of your assumptions and presumptions.

Please note that this forum is meant for suggestions based facts in the light of inherent legal elements, settled legal concepts and statutory provisions in force. 

P. Venu, this space is very new to me so I am looking for more direct opinions from active law practicioners to help reconcile the different resources I have self researched. My goal is to leave this conversation with concrete citings to help me explain the situation to my family, regardless whether I leave with my original interpetation or I discover a new one. If this is not allowed, or if I can change the tone and tenor to better reflect that of the forum, please let me know.

Thank you again T. Kalaiselvan. This is very helpful insight.

What you are suggesting is simpler, and in my opinion, more logical and equitable - a grandson should only be able claim a share out of their father's share.

My confusion stems from why the definition of coparcenaries explictly includes the designation of "across 4 generations" if coparcenary property can only be partitioned between father and sons? What are situations where the relationship of property spans across generational lines, and a grandson and grandfather have an equal share of property at the moment of partition?

I came across Shyam Narayan Prasad vs Krishna Prasad 2018 which appears to have similarities. I believe #10 confirms that the plaintiffs (sons and grandson) are members of the copercenary of the defendant (the grandfather). #12 confirms that the coparceners "acquire an interest and the rights attached to such property at the moment of their birth". However, nothing is said about the size of interest each coparcener has.

As I suggested earlier that your interpretation of law is based on your predetermined concept. 

The coparceners are entitled to a share in the ancestral property out of the share of their respective fathers alone. 

In fact when a daughter inherits a share out of an ancestral property,  it will become her own and absolute property and her next generation children will not be considered as coparceners and hence they are not entitled to claim any share out of their mother's share of ancestral property. 

So,  don't get confused by reading between the lines or wrongly understanding the judgments or the law itself. 

You can better consult an experienced lawyer in the local in person and get your further doubts clarified 

Coparcenary starts from 4th generation i.e., great-grandfather's property. It excludes any property purchased / acquired by grand-father to be termed as "ancestral" and liable to be partitioned.

You have complicated facts of the case, it is better to consult a local prudent lawyer with relevant property records for better appreciation of facts, professional advise and necessary proceeding.