SHAILENDRA PRIYA
29 October 2011 at 17:11
Sir, I am Priya from Mysore, earlier in my query i had asked that in partition suit they say that ancestral property rights is by birth but in pushpalatha judgment daughters born before 17-6-56 are not eligible for equal share but why is it that supreme court in its judgment on 12-10-2011 with reference to Gandhuri koteshwaramma vs Chakiri yanadi they have not taken date of birth into consideration and all other high court judgments such as orissa high court even they have not taken date of birth into consideration how is it that only karnataka high court has taken this into consideration and is it a sin that earlier born people are going to be denied rights in ancestral property
sir plz i want a reply.
with regards
PRIYA S
Jameer
29 October 2011 at 17:10
Hello sir i am Jameer.I want to know according to muslim property act who are the legal heirs of a person.Please provide answer with an example.
Thank you
Mustapha Plummer
29 October 2011 at 17:07
Dear Sir plz read an atcched document & comment plz what should be our course of action to safe guard our rights.
1. That We have been lawfully occupying and using for our business of plumbing, engineering, P.V.C., pipes and other allied articles, the property mentioned hereinabove, for the last 100 years.
2. That we have been using the said property for business as tenants, of which we were regularly paying rent. In or about 1960, the said property and other adjacent properties had been taken over by Bombay Municipal Corporation/ Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika. As soon as the said Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika started issuing bills, we continued to pay the necessary rent to them.
3. We have been regularly paying property tax in respect of the said property and also have been regularly paying electricity bills.
4. In or about in the Year 2000 A.D , we learnt that we have been transferred as Vacant Land Tenant (“V.L.T”) instead of permanent tenant of the two godowns, one garage, one room for the residence of employees and some open space being used for storage of material, admeasuring about 2000 sq.ft. We preferred an application under the Right of Information Act, requesting for information regarding the area and the status of the property. By a letter dated November 10, 2006, we were informed that we were Building Tenancy and not V.L.T., and to take the same status of tenancy on Municipal record at Ward level and issue necessary receipts towards recovery of rent.
5. We were notified by the Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika vide its letter dated November 10, 2006 have clearly mentioned that our status be correctly changed as Building Tenancy instead of V.L.T. and to take the same status of tenancy on Municipal record.
6. We were told by the Brihan Mumbai Mahanagarpalika vide its letter dated December 12, 2006, addressed and informed the Deputy Collector of Slum Rehabilitation Authority (“SRA”) that the property admeasuring about 1725 sq.ft. stands in our name as Building Tenancy on a monthly basis and are not V.L.T.
7. We were told by the Corporation vide its letter dated December 18, 2006, addressed , the Joint Municipal Commissioner (Improvement) has been please to sanction for the change of the status from V.L.T. to commercial Building Tenancy.
8. On follow up with the SRA, SRA vide its letter dated January __, 2007, informed the Municipal Corporation, that Annexure 2 has beeen amended and
sent.. However, Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika vide its letter dated March 29, 2007, requested Colony Officer, F/South Ward, to modify the Annexure II and change the status of tenancy as Building Tenancy with 1725sq.ft area and issue the same as required by the Secretary, S.R.A.
9. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, vide its letter dated October 1, 2007, informed SRA, that the Estate Department of Municipal Corporation has with the approval of the Assistant Commissioner (Improvement) converted the lease of the vacant plot in our name to Mahalaxmi Co-operative Housing Society, into permanent Building Tenancy and that changes in Annexure II will be made accordingly.
10.Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, vide its letter dated February 10, 2010, addressed and informed SRA, that the Estate Department of Municipal Corporation has with the approval of the Assistant Commissioner (Improvement) converted the lease of the plot in our name of to Mahalaxmi Co-operative Housing Society, into permanent Building Tenancy and that changes in Annexure II will be made accordingly.
11. To our utter shock and surprise, on May 12, 2010, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai demolished the entire property of ours being about 1725 sq.ft carpet area .We lost our goods & stocks of more than 52- lacs, lying in the said property, which have been destroyed. We once again mention that, We have been declared by the BMC as Building Tenancy of which rent June,
2010, has been already accepted by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. In advance
After follow up Asst comm issues a letter attached for SRA to tiull date there is no answer.
Present status is We are out of business & Buiulder refuses to even talk or give us alternate place. saying as per rules of 33.1 we are supposed to get only 225 sqft where in we were occuping 1725 sq carpet.
Case now is with High Power committe. Could you plz comment on the merits & what should be done.
Anonymous
29 October 2011 at 16:10
that due to some unavoidable circumstances the registration of document could not be registered in April, 2011. The transferee requires the refund of stamp duty amount. What is the procedure in registration act for refund of stamp duty amount and how much time it will take. thanks
Anonymous
29 October 2011 at 13:32
Sir/Madam I am the only son and 5 sisters. My grand mother( mothers mother) has made a registered will in favour of me for her propertyi.e a house. She is a leasehold reights from a math and by way of will shehas transfered the lease hold rights to me. after my granny passed away the property is in my name. In 2008 the math authorities issued a notice to me to vacant the property then after wards I purchase the holder rights from the Math. Now my mother from the instigation of my 5 sisters made a suit against me that i have made the property in my name with the help of false will in my name . but the will is register and my mother also one of the witness of the will and i am also already purchased the holder rights of the property from the math authorities. please advise me to what should i do and what will be the court decision. please help this case
Anonymous
29 October 2011 at 11:29
Dear Experts, Please let me know, I have 5 sisters, I am the Last Son for my father, My First Sister Born before 1955.. and Married and now she passed away.. She have one Son.. Did she have any property rights on Father's Agri.Land.. ( If she have rights then the same will be transferred to her son now live ) Her son can demand the property share..?.. My father passed away in the year of 1970.. Property Purchased by Mr Grand father ...Please give your views. : Land now on my name.. ( Name Transfer from my Mother after getting Gift Deed, and Release deed from all my 4 sisters ) , Please guide me. thanks
Anonymous
29 October 2011 at 09:36
Dear expert,
Please send me section 95 a(3) of Mhada act 1976. My query is, I am a tenant of Mhada building and residing in the mhada premises since 1988 illegaly. According to Mhada I am a tresspasser. We requeted mhada to regularise our tenancy but mhada did not agree for that. We approached the concerned minister and with thier help mhada agreed and passed a rosolution to regularise our tenancy and asked us to pay the cost of premises and arrears of rent. We paid the same in mhada office, then we executed the tenancy agreement with mhada and also paid proper stamp duty in Bombay Stamp office. After some time mhada passed another resolution to cancel the earlier rosultion and cancelled the scheme of regularisation of premises. And now mhada send notice u/s 95 a(3).
my query is after passing a resolution to regularise the tenancy of tenant, and after execution of tenancy agreement with tenant with payment of proper amount of stamp duty,how can mhada pass another resolution and cancel the earlier resolution and cancel the scheme? Then what about the execution of tenancy agreement with payment of stamp duty?
please advice me and if you require any more infomation pls let me know.
SHAILENDRA PRIYA
28 October 2011 at 20:14
AS PER HINDU SUCCESSION AMENDED ACT 2005 WOMEN HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS OVER THE ANCESTRAL AND FATHERS PROPERTY BY BIRTH. BUT THEN IN PUSHPALATA CASE WHY IT HAS BEEN GIVEN AS WOMEN BORN BEFORE 17/6/1956 DOESNT HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS?
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Refund of stamp duty amount....contd.
in my case the matter is printed on the bond papers and requisite challan has been and it is not signed by either of the parties of the document. whether it is refundable or not.