Moot court problem

Answer to Q. no. 1: Yes, plaint is maintainable. The suit will be partition suit.

Answer to Q. no. 2: Yes, it is valid. Chandan is an adopted son. and accordin to the Adoptions law the adopted child acquires all the right of the natural born son . so there cannot be any difference created between the adopted son in the family.

Answer to Q. no. 3: yes, Badal can be considered as a coparcenor for claiming share in undivided property like his other cousin brotheres and sisters.

Answer to Q. no. 4: Chandan's widow has got a right to claim her husband's share in the family property. But second wife of Bimal ( the maid ) does not have any right to claim the property. because under Hindu law a man can have only one wife. if he marries in the life time of his first wife without giving her proper divorce, then this marries is illegal. so his second wife will not be considered as a coapercener. But her son born to her by Bimal named as Badal is very much considered as family coapercener. He has got every right to claim his fatheres share as a family coapercener.

Answer to Q. no. 5:gift deed is valid.

The paramount question is whether ADOPTION of Chandan was registered in the court, if not it is invalid adoption.

how the gift deed is valid?????????????????? no one can make a gift deed of his share in undivided joint family....

Dear Ajay the owner, you did not answer to my question as to whether Chandan's adoption was registered in the court? Please don't evade the question because they are there to help you. It is another matter if you don't want to disclose  them, if it is so then don't ask  the vague or hypothetical questions please.

sir m not tryin to evade d question..... the adoption was made strictly as per Hindu Adoption and Maintenane Act.........d only point i m not able to prove s how to make Bimal's second wife(maid) to claim a share in undivided coparcenary property?????

Dear Mr. Ajay,

The gift deed is valid because. it is clear from your story that Deepak is heir apparent. he will be getting the share  of the family property. and also he has made his will. so if suppose he dies before acquiring his family propety then alos his will is there to be operative. so in this section there is no doubt regarding his share or property. and since adoption is registered then the adopted son has already stepped into the shoes of the real son and he is a coapercener. and regarding the second wife (maid), our hindu law does not receognise this kind of marriages, so the second wife will not get anyhting from the family property but her son will get. this is all....................... THE END.

acc. to copacenary law no1 can make a gift deed of his undivided share.....acc. to sec. 122 and 123 of TPA also der mst b acceptance n delivery of possesion to make a gift deed valid n in dis case der is no delivery of possession as d share was undivided .,,,,,,,,n he made d gift deed of his share in undivided joint family property unilaterally
 

Brij mohan had two wives. Arvind and Rishi were his sons by the first wife and Ranveer and Yogesh were his son by the second wife. Brij mohan died in the year 1954 and his second son Rishi had predeceased him on 1953 leaving his widow Mohini.

In the year 1950, there was a partition of the joint family properties between Brij mohan and his four sons, Arvind, Rishi, Ranveer and Yogesh, the property was divided between the father and four sons by metes and bounds. Anurag natural born son of Arvind died on 1981, leaving behind a son Anupransh. Arvind died in 1988 having executed a will in the same year before his death where under he gave his properties in equal shares to Anupransh and Anushree, the daughter of his pre-deceased daughter Saraswati; there under he also directed Mohini, the widow of his brother Rishi, to take possession of the entire property belonging to him, to manage the same, to spend the income there from at her discretion and to hand over the property to his two grandchildren after they attained majority and if either or both of them died before attaining majority, his or her share or the entire property, as the cases may be, would go to Mohini.

The point to be perceived here is that his daughter-in-law, Pushpshree wife of Anurag was excluded from management as well as from inheritance after the death of Arvind. But Mohini allowed Pushpshree to manage the entire property and she accordingly came into possession of the entire property after the death of Arvind. Anupransh died on 1993. Anushree also died in minority in same year.

Mohini filed a suit in 1994 in the Court of the District Judge, Jodhpur for possession of property on ground alleging that sometime before his death, Rishi took Anurag, the son of his brother Arvind in adoption as per religious customs. Pushpshree contested the suit on ground that that her husband Anurag was not adopted by Mohini and that she was denied the share on partition.

The District court allowed the suit on ground:

1)      That the adoption of Anurag by Rishi was not proved.

2)      That Pushpshree has no share on partition into the property inherited by Arvind on partition.

3)      That Arvind had no male issue so was well within his right to make a will for his entire property inherited by partition.

Pushpshree approaches the High court in appeal.

this is my moot court problem and i am from respondent side. please help me out in framing issues and arguments.

i too have the same moot proposition from the petitioner side ... can anyone give me the answer for it