Wife's share in husband's property

Dear Subba Rao,

Was there a proper family arrangement amongst the father, sons and his daughter...? If the answer is yes , then she can claim, only on the  share which is entitled to her husband. As there was a partition earlier, the rest of the family is excluded from this dispute

Than Q Mr. Vish,

The family arrangement was written by my father's own hand writing and signed by all his 3 sons in 1982. The problem is that the share pertaining to the father  was mentioned in the will made by him in 1986 to his grand son.  The problem was created by 3rd son who is back to her. The 3rd son's date of birth is 15-08-1961. they are arguing that the family arrangement was existed or signed during his minority. Is it correct ? Please advice , so that he will take decision to compromise with them without court. Thanking you.

Please make a correction in the above reply , Please read as "my friend father's"  in place of " my father's" in the first line .

The family arrangement that you have mentioned is perfectly valid in law. From the third son's D.O.B it is clear that he was over 21 at time of entering into the family arrangement- legally he is competent to enter into a contract and he cannot retract his act. The will executed by your friend's father is also valid and hence the property will be inherited by his grandson. The most important thing is to protect this document and produce the same in court if he decides to contest the family arrangement.

My Dear Mr.Vish,

                                Thank you very much for your reply. But the date of family arrangement was executed  on 09-07-1982. That is 24 days less to 21 years as per PAN card.  In another registered document executed on 24-06-2009 he mentioned his age as 48 years (not mentioned  even "about")  as on that date, under personal information. Means he declared that comleted 21 years as on 24-06-1982. Hence O.K he completed 21 years as per registered document.  Which is going to be valid?  How to defend ? what will be the fate of my friend  in the court of law ?

Regards

B.V.Subba Rao.

Dear Subbarao,

I don't have an answer as to how judges will view the shortage of 21 days... As I had mentioned earlier , the family arrangement will be valid and the final outcome will depend on who was in possession of the property after the execution of the family agreement and the conduct of the parties in course of time since then.

Dear Mr.Vish

                         If any son of a father is minor, then his share will be under the natural guardianship of  his father after  the  execution of family arrangement. Is it correct ? If the son does not agree upon the family arrangement which was existed during his minority, he has to challenge the family aggrement after attaining majority of 18 years.  According to limitation act. the challenge should be made before 3 years after attaining majority ( i.e. before attaining 21 years). Is it correct way of defence? This is the argument heard from my collegue to defend. Hence my friend could not take decision on different views.  Hence posted in this Forum. Do not think otherwise Mr.Vanish, as a student you will answer correctly  by refer law books.  Thank you very much for bearing  my pain.

With Regards

Subba rao

Dear Subbarao,

A father is the natural guardian of his son. With resepect to HUF he is the karta or manager.

Explanation of section 7 of limitation act:

The karta can effect a partition without the minor's consent which in your case is the family arrangement. Now suppose if the karta has alienated some property which would devolve upon his minor son without any legal necessity then the eldest son will have to initiate a suit to set aside the sale on his reaching majority . If he does not initiate a suit withing 3 years of his attaining majority- along with his minor brother or else his younger sibling is  barred by limitation. Example: father sold ancestral land when the sons were minor for gambling purposes

In your case , if the contention of that minor son that there was no family arrangement, which is a good ground for him to institute partition suit.

On the other hand , if you have proof( deed of family arrangement) that the minor son benefitted equally as any other coparcenor of the property -is a ground for you to succeed in the suit .

Why should a husband share his property with a wife who is not interested to share her life with him?

Women can make money very easily by simply marrying any person, say that she does not like him as he is torturing her, she wants divorce from him and share his property. Just to own a Rs.40 lakhs flat, men become indebted for life by taking a loan and work as slaves in private companies day and night sacrificing many things and spending sleepless nights. By just marrying a man, a women easily gets 50% share in his hard earned property, but at the same time, a man is not entitled to get any share in a women’s property by marrying her.

If a wife doesn’t want her husband, then why does she need his property alone. If it is a women right to share her body and mind with a person whom she likes, it is a man’s right to share his hard earned property with a person whom he likes. Why should a husband share his property with a wife who is not interested to share her life.

These law makers are crossing their limit and if men keep quiet generously, they start passing as many laws as they can according to their own will and wish. As long as men keep quiet, nothing is going to work out. All men should stand united to fight against the feminist evils and women activist to safeguard themselves. This law is basically framed to harass men and to make men as slaves of women. This is a clear-cut evidence of injustice done to men & this has to be withdrawn or amended in such a way that both have equal rights, equal responsibilities and equal punishments for mistakes so as to ensure that justice to men is not denied in the name of doing justice to women.