Undivided rights in inherited self-acquired

The posting suggest deeper issues. Please post complete facts.

You can donate your share to anyone of your choice.

Sir, I have donated to my 1st grandchild. But my 2nd & 3rd children who abandoned me when I was nearing 60, are objecting in Final Decree Proceeding stating that joint family property cannot be gifted that too there is no provision to gift undivided right. 

So I want to know which Law or Act allows for gifting of undivided rights in inherited self aquired property?

Admittedly, there has been a parition suit wherein the preliminary decree has already been passed. You have not posted these elementary facts in the intitial posting. 

The present information places the things in a different light. Still substantial information is lacking. Please post complete facts.

What is the extent and nature of the property? Who has filed the partition suit? Who are the defendants? What exactly is the preliminary decree passed?

I agree with the observations and queries raised by expert Mr P Venu.

There is no conflict in the Judgement passed. The judge has applied SEction 8 of Hindu Succession Act and declared this property to be self-acquired proprety of my husband. The suit was filed by my youngest son - he did not inform the court that Sale Deed was issued in favour of 4 heirs during pendency of suit. And that myself and my 4 children were joint owners before the judgement was passed. He filed suit only my providing katha and has not submitted title deed of any property to the court.

Though the judgement states this property to be self-acquired property of my husband, my 2nd and 3rd (youngest son) are trying to avoid the donee from getting my share of property, so they are objecting in FDP by providing false information that this property is family property. Supreme Court has held on 18 Jan that transfer made during pendency of suit is not a void document.

The nature of the property is extremely clear in my initial posting - A site property was purchased by my husband in auction from City Corporation. 

Title (ownership) of the property do not have any doubt, it is "self-acquired" of your deceased husband, which is succeeded by you with your 3 children in equal share getting 1/4th each.

However, being undevided it remained undemarcated / unspecified for which someone of you (youngest son) have stated to have filed a suit (probably for partition & possession) wherein preliminary decree is already passed, if I have understood the facts posted by you correctly. 

What do you mean by your statement that, the plaintiff (youngest son) did not inform the Court about sale deed was executed in favour of your 4 children during pendency of suit ????

Which case is being referred by you wherein you have stated to have been passed on 18 January by Supreme Court ???

There are subsequent queries / infirmities in your statement which your lawyer knows better that what you have posted and attempted to convey is different, vague and confusing.

Accordingly it is advisable to consult your lawyer.

In chronological order:

What I mean is when the suit was filed, this property had katha in the name of my husband.

Many years after that the title deed was issued by City Cororation to my and my 3 children. This my last child -the plaintiff did not inform the court

Later the judgement was delivered that this is self-acquired property of my husband, and we each have equal share.

There is no infirmity in what I state, but this being a public forum, I have to take care what I post. 

Sir, I request if I may consult you in private 

I am afraid you have not posted the relevant facts, if at all this is not a cock and bull story.

If it is that your youngest son has filed the suit for partiton with incomplete and incchoate facts, nothing prevented you or the other defendants i.e. other joint-holders from placing the all the material facts before the Court through their written statement. And, in such a suit for partition, all the joint-holders are and ought to be necessary parties.

Moreover, the proceedings in the final decree is limited to apportioning the suit property by metes and bounds in terms of the preliminary decree which has already settled (if at all there is such a decree) the issue of the partibility of the property and the respective shares of each joint holders. And it is elementary that in  the proceedings in the final decree, it is not at all permissible for the parties to reagitate the issues already settled in the judgment and preliminary decree; nor has the Court any discretion or jurisdiction to go behind the judgment and decree. 

Attention P Venus what has cock and bull story to do with the query..  state revelant facts.. 

You may contact me, if you feel so, as per details provided in my profile.