RAVINDER PAL
28 October 2011 at 15:26
WE WERE HAVING ANCESSTRALHOUSE WHICH WAS THE PROPERTY OF MY GRANDFATHER ,MY GRANDFATHER TRANSFERRED THE SAME IN THE NAME OF MY FATHER & GRANDMOTHER .MY FATHER FAMILY & MY UNCLE FAMILY (MY FATHER BROTHER WAS LIVING IN HIS HOUSE. 5YEARS AGO
THIS HOUSE WAS SOLD FOR 22 LACS by the consent of my father & my grandmother .They have not given a single penny to me .Can I claim as this house was my grandfather property.
RAVINDER PAL
28 October 2011 at 15:01
I am having ancesstral Hotel. This Hotel was established by my grandfather.The value is worth 60 lacs. My uncle ( father brother) & his son are running this Hotel .They are not giving any income to me & nor they are giving any share to me,my brother & my father . What should I do
Deepak
28 October 2011 at 12:41
I found one document of grandfather land registered in 1973. from 1973 to till EC shows that land belongs to my grandfather. But patta alone was in some other name who is not at all related to us. Verifying patta records it is clear that some fraud has happened in Revenue dept. Now i want to change patta to my grandfather name. But my grandfather is no more. Tahsildar told that he cannot change patta to grandfather name. How can i do this. I want to sell that land for my education. What is the right way to do this?
Anonymous
28 October 2011 at 11:30
Dear sir,
We are 4 children(2 boys,2 girls). Father died before 2004 & mother in 2006. Elder is girl, born in 1949,then others 1952,1955,1960. We have 4th generation ancestral property. If we make partition now,is our elder sister(married)who born before 1956 act,is eligible for equal share?
As per times of india, recent publication about Karnataka emendment act clarification by high court: All children are equally eligible, who born after June 17, 1956.
Please give some advice on this.
Suresh
GAURAV
27 October 2011 at 21:12
Sir, What is meaning of "probate of a will". Is it different from "WILL DEED"? If different from "WILL DEED" then where it is required?
Anonymous
27 October 2011 at 16:25
I live in house( located in Delhi Region Area belonged to my grandfather died inestate on 1994 survived by 2 sons ( my father and Uncle(chacha)). My father occupied the groundfloor and my Uncle occupied the First Floor. My father has 2 sons while Uncle expired in 1999 and is survived by one son who is married and is not staying in the First floor and has locked the terrace
Since for the develling of my father family we are in need of terrace for the construction of another floor which has been bluntly refused by cousin and his mother
Many times we had initaied talk on table to allow us to construct addition of floor i.e 2nd Floor so that it will also be convenient to them for addition of another floor i.e 3rd Floor..but they didnot agree but always in favor of creating hassles..we too offered them to sell their floor if not interesting for living here but again they denied...In that case what alternative will be left for us..? Is there any provision under which we can move to the court for seeking directions to them for allowing us for addition/construction of floor as the property is still in the name of grnadfather
skanda vallishayee
27 October 2011 at 11:17
myself(geetha) and my sister filed a suit on our brothers for partion of our fathers property, where our father has not made any will, the following events took place after that
We failed for partition and separate possession in in 1994.
learned principle civil judge of shimoga (karnataka) passed judgement and preliminary decree passed at 12.12.03 and we have been allotted 1/15 th share.
in the view of the amendment to hindu succession act by the parliament of india by virtue of C.A 39/2005, the petitioner is also entitled for an equal share with that of male heirs under section 6 of the hindu succession act
since the decree passed on 12.12.2003 is preliminary one and final decree proceedings is yet to be filed and in the view of hindu succession act (amendment) 2005 has been amended, the
(we) petitioner filed an application under section 151 r/w section 152 of cpc with a prayer to modify the judgements decree to grant equal share instead of 1/15th share
the learned trial judge dismissed the application at 5.6.2008 stating the application filed by the plaintiff has barred by the limitation
As such a writ petition MO. 10926 of 2008 was moved in high court against the above decision.
the honorable high court is of the opinion that we have to challenge the preliminary decree itself seeking the modification of share instead of filing an application for rectification of shares with section 151 & 152 of cpc.
in the view of the above a fresh application was moved in the court at shimoga ( district of karnataka ), court has fined Rs. 500 for delay in admitting case and the case has been filed once again, its is pending for argument
in the above circumstances we would like to know
possible outcome of the decision
my date of birth: 1952
Anonymous
27 October 2011 at 09:43
“V” PURCHASED THE RIGHTS OF THE ALTERNATE PLOT/ PROPERTY MEASURING 250 SQ. YD . FROM “AS” ON 9.10.1996 AN AGREEMENT TO SELL GPA AND OTHER DOCUMENTS WERE EXECUTED/SIGNED BY ATTAR SINGH IN FAVOR OF “V” .
A WILL DATED 9.10.1996 WAS ALSO EXECUTED BY “AS” IN FAVOR OF “V” . THE SAID WILL WAS DULY REGISTERED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR DELHI .
MR. “AS” WAS BACHELOR AND NEVER MARRIED DURING HIS LIFETIME.
MR. “AS” EXPIRED ON 5.10.1999 . MR. “AS” HAD NO CLASS –I LEGAL HEIRS .
IN THE YEAR 2000 , AFTER THE DEATH OF MR. “AS” “V” APPLIED FOR THE MUTATION OF THE SAID PROPERTY IN HIS NAME IN DDA ON THE BASIS OF THE WILL BUT MUTATION WAS NOT DONE
IN OCTOBER 2003 ONE “B” CLAIMING TO BE THE LEGAL HEIR OF “ AS” ALSO APPLIED FOR THE MUTATION . HE CLAIMED TO BE THE GRANDSON OF THE ONLY REAL BROTHER OF THE DECEASED “AS” .
“ V” CAME TO KNOW OF THE ALLOTMENT OF THE SAID PLOT BY DDA AND FILED AN APPLICATION DATED 26.6.2007 UNDER RTI FOR THE INSPECTION OF THE CONCERNED FILE . THEREAFTER “V” SOUGHT THE COPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE IN THE FILE . THE DOCUMENTS OF THE CONCERNED PROPERTY WERE MADE AVAILABLE BY THE DDA TO “V” SEPT 2011.
FROM THE NOTINGS IN THE FILE IT WAS SEEN THAT THE DDA HAS ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF “ V” THAT “ AS” HAS BEQUETHED HIS RIGHTS OF SAID PROPERTY TO “ V” AND THE SO CALLED LR’S OF MR. ATTAR SINGH HAS NO RIGHT OVER THE SAID PROPERTY .
NOW SINCE THE DISPUTE HAS BEEN CREATED BY “B ” THE SO CALLED LEGAL HEIR OF “AS” , THE DDA SUGGESTED TO SETTLE THE CASE FROM THE COURT.
FURTHER IN JUNE 2007 AFTER THE DISPUTE AROSE IN RESPECT TO THE AFORE SAID PROPERTY, “V” INVOKED THE ARBITRATION AS PER THE AGREEMENT.
SINCE THE DDA HAS SUGGESTED TO SETTLE THE CASE FROM THE COURT THEREFORE A PROBATE CASE WAS FILED BY “V” IN JUNE 2010 IN DELHI COURT FOR THE PROBATE OF THE WILL DT. 9.10.96 .
IN THE MEANWHILE IN AUGUST 2010 “B” APPROACHED “V” FOR SETTLEMENT .
A JOINT SETTLEMENT DEED WAS PREPARED AND SUBMITTED TO THE ARBITRATOR WITH A REQUEST TO PUBLISH THE AWARD ON THE BASIS OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED. AN AMOUNT OF RS________ WAS PAID TO “B” IN LIEU OF THE SAID SETTLEMENT AND RECEIPT OF THE SAME WAS ALSO SIGNED AND SUBMITTED TO THE ARBITRATOR .
THE ARBITRATOR ON 9/2010 ON THE BASIS OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED PUBLISHED THE AWARD OF DIRECTING “B” TO TRANSFER THE SAID PROIPERTY IN FAVOUR OF “V” BY EXECUTING SALE DEED / PROPER DOCUMENTS AND FURTHER IN THE EVENT HE FAILS TO TRANSFER THE SAID PROPERTY IN FAVOUR OF “V” THEN TO PAY THE DAMAGES OF RS __________ TO VINOD SHARMA AS AGREED IN THE SETTLEMENT DEED . .
AS PER THE UNDERSTANDING A NO OBJECTION IN THE FORM OF AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED BEFORE THE PROBATE COURT DULY ATTESTED BEFORE THE OATH COMMISIONER WAS FILED BY “B” ON 6.1.2010 THRU HIS ADVOCATE . ON THE SAME DAY “B”CAME ALONG WITH SOME OTHER ADVOCATE AND STATED BEFORE THE COURT THAT HE HAS NOT SIGNED THE AFFIDAVIT OF NO OBJECTION AND BACKED OUT FROM HIS COMMITMENTS AND FILED OBJECTIONS TO THE PETITION OF PROBATE CASE . SEEING THE CONDUCT OF B HARAT KUMAR THE COURT ISSUED NOTICE U/S 340 CRPC AGAINST “B” FOR STATING LIE BEFORE THE COURT .
THEREAFTER IN COLLUSION WITH THE DDA OFFICIALS “B” MANAGED TO GET THE SAID PROPERTY MUTATED IN HIS NAME .
THEREAFTER THE COURT DIRECTED “ B” TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS CQUO IN REGARD TO THE SUIT PROPERTY .
THE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER DT. 22.7.2011 WAS SERVED UPON THE DDA ON 25.7.2011 .
THEREAFTER “B” IN VIOLATION OF THE ORDERS OF THE ROHINI COURTAPPLIED FOR THE POSESSION AND EXECUTION OF THE PERPETUAL LEASE AND IN CONNIVANCE WITH THE DDA OFFICIALS , TOOK OVER THE POSESSION AND EXECUTED THE PERPETUAL LEASE IN DDA .
THEREAFTER “V ” CAME TO KNOW THAT “B” HAS CONCEALED AND MISREPRESENTED THE FACTS THAT GRAND CHILDREN OF THE ONE MORE REAL BROTHER( SAY “HM” ) ARE STILL ALIVE AND ARE ALSO THE EQUAL LR’S . THIS FACT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE COURT. NOTICE ISSUED . THE GRAND CHILDREN OF “HM “ GAVE STATEMENT IN COURT THAT “ B” HAS PLAYED FRAUD BY MISREPRESENTING AND FURTHER GAVE THEIR CONSENT TO PROBATE THE SAID PROPERTY IN FAVOUR OF “V” .
THE WITNESSES TO THE WILL ARE IN FAVOUR OF “V”
NOW QUERY;
WHERE DOES “V” STAND WHAT ARE HIS CHANCES OF WINNING THE CASE . ?
What actions can be taken against “B “ ?
WHAT IS THE AUTHENTICITY AND VALUE OF THE ARBITRAL AWARD ?
SHOULD THE EXECUTION OF THE AWARD BE FILED OR WAIT FOR THE DECISION OF THE PROBATE COURT ?
IS THE AWARD OF THE ARIBTRATOR ON THE BASIS OF SETTLEMENT DIRECTING FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND IN THE EVENT OF FAILURE TO DO SO AWARD OF DAMAGES VALID OR NOT .
Anonymous
27 October 2011 at 09:38
“V” PURCHASED THE RIGHTS OF THE ALTERNATE PLOT/ PROPERTY MEASURING 250 SQ. YD . FROM “AS” ON 9.10.1996 AN AGREEMENT TO SELL GPA AND OTHER DOCUMENTS WERE EXECUTED/SIGNED BY ATTAR SINGH IN FAVOR OF “V” .
A WILL DATED 9.10.1996 WAS ALSO EXECUTED BY “AS” IN FAVOR OF “V” . THE SAID WILL WAS DULY REGISTERED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR DELHI .
MR. “AS” WAS BACHELOR AND NEVER MARRIED DURING HIS LIFETIME.
MR. “AS” EXPIRED ON 5.10.1999 . MR. “AS” HAD NO CLASS –I LEGAL HEIRS .
IN THE YEAR 2000 , AFTER THE DEATH OF MR. ATTAR SINGH , “V” APPLIED FOR THE MUTATION OF THE SAID PROPERTY IN HIS NAME IN DDA ON THE BASIS OF THE WILL BUT MUTATION WAS NOT DONE
IN THE YEAR 2003 MR. ATTAR SINGH WAS ALLOTTED THE PLOT NO. 14 , POCKET -1 , BLOCK-C , SECTOR 27 ROHINI DELHI.
NO INTIMATION OF THIS ALLOTMENT WAS MADE BY THE DDA TO VINOD SHARMA DESPITE HIS REQUEST DATED JULY 2000 FOR MUTATING HIS NAME IN THE RECORDS OF DDA .
NO INTIMATION WAS MADE TO VINOD SHARMA IN REGARD TO ANY CORRESPONDENCE ETC BY OTHER PERSONS IN RESPECT TO THE SAID PROPERTY . THE DDA OFFICIALS KEPT VINOD SHARMA IN DARK ABOUT THE CORRESPONDENCES AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE SAID PROPERTY .
IN OCTOBER 2003 ONE “B” CLAIMING TO BE THE LEGAL HEIR OF “ AS” ALSO APPLIED FOR THE MUTATION . HE CLAIMED TO BE THE GRANDSON OF THE ONLY REAL BROTHER OF THE DECEASED “AS” .
“ V” CAME TO KNOW OF THE ALLOTMENT OF THE SAID PLOT BY DDA AND FILED AN APPLICATION DATED 26.6.2007 UNDER RTI FOR THE INSPECTION OF THE CONCERNED FILE . THEREAFTER VINOD SHARMA SOUGHT THE COPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE IN THE FILE . THE DOCUMENTS OF THE CONCERNED PROPERTY WERE MADE AVAILABLE BY THE DDA TO VINOD SHARMA SEPT 2011.
FROM THE NOTINGS IN THE FILE IT WAS SEEN THAT THE DDA HAS ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF “ V” THAT “ AS” HAS BEQUETHED HIS RIGHTS OF SAID PROPERTY TO “ V” AND THE SO CALLED LR’S OF MR. ATTAR SINGH HAS NO RIGHT OVER THE SAID PROPERTY .
NOW SINCE THE DISPUTE HAS BEEN CREATED BY “B ” THE SO CALLED LEGAL HEIR OF “AS” , THE DDA SUGGESTED TO SETTLE THE CASE FROM THE COURT.
FURTHER IN JUNE 2007 AFTER THE DISPUTE AROSE IN RESPECT TO THE AFORE SAID PROPERTY, “V” INVOKED THE ARBITRATION AS PER THE AGREEMENT.
SINCE THE DDA HAS SUGGESTED TO SETTLE THE CASE FROM THE COURT THEREFORE A PROBATE CASE WAS FILED BY “V” IN JUNE 2010 IN DELHI COURT FOR THE PROBATE OF THE WILL DT. 9.10.96 .
IN THE MEANWHILE IN AUGUST 2010 “B” APPROACHED “V” FOR SETTLEMENT .
A JOINT SETTLEMENT DEED WAS PREPARED AND SUBMITTED TO THE ARBITRATOR WITH A REQUEST TO PUBLISH THE AWARD ON THE BASIS OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED. AN AMOUNT OF RS________ WAS PAID TO “B” IN LIEU OF THE SAID SETTLEMENT AND RECEIPT OF THE SAME WAS ALSO SIGNED AND SUBMITTED TO THE ARBITRATOR .
THE ARBITRATOR ON 9/2010 ON THE BASIS OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED PUBLISHED THE AWARD OF DIRECTING “B” TO TRANSFER THE SAID PROIPERTY IN FAVOUR OF “V” BY EXECUTING SALE DEED / PROPER DOCUMENTS AND FURTHER IN THE EVENT HE FAILS TO TRANSFER THE SAID PROPERTY IN FAVOUR OF “V” THEN TO PAY THE DAMAGES OF RS __________ TO VINOD SHARMA AS AGREED IN THE SETTLEMENT DEED . .
AS PER THE UNDERSTANDING A NO OBJECTION IN THE FORM OF AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED BEFORE THE PROBATE COURT DULY ATTESTED BEFORE THE OATH COMMISIONER WAS FILED BY “B” ON 6.1.2010 THRU HIS ADVOCATE . ON THE SAME DAY “B”CAME ALONG WITH SOME OTHER ADVOCATE AND STATED BEFORE THE COURT THAT HE HAS NOT SIGNED THE AFFIDAVIT OF NO OBJECTION AND BACKED OUT FROM HIS COMMITMENTS AND FILED OBJECTIONS TO THE PETITION OF PROBATE CASE . SEEING THE CONDUCT OF B HARAT KUMAR THE COURT ISSUED NOTICE U/S 340 CRPC AGAINST “B” FOR STATING LIE BEFORE THE COURT .
THEREAFTER IN COLLUSION WITH THE DDA OFFICIALS “B” MANAGED TO GET THE SAID PROPERTY MUTATED IN HIS NAME .
THEREAFTER THE COURT DIRECTED “ B” TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS CQUO IN REGARD TO THE SUIT PROPERTY .
THE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER DT. 22.7.2011 WAS SERVED UPON THE DDA ON 25.7.2011 .
THEREAFTER “B” IN VIOLATION OF THE ORDERS OF THE ROHINI COURTAPPLIED FOR THE POSESSION AND EXECUTION OF THE PERPETUAL LEASE AND IN CONNIVANCE WITH THE DDA OFFICIALS , TOOK OVER THE POSESSION AND EXECUTED THE PERPETUAL LEASE IN DDA .
THEREAFTER “V ” CAME TO KNOW THAT “B” HAS CONCEALED AND MISREPRESENTED THE FACTS THAT GRAND CHILDREN OF THE ONE MORE REAL BROTHER( SAY “HM” ) ARE STILL ALIVE AND ARE ALSO THE EQUAL LR’S . THIS FACT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE COURT. NOTICE ISSUED . THE GRAND CHILDREN OF “HM “ GAVE STATEMENT IN COURT THAT “ B” HAS PLAYED FRAUD BY MISREPRESENTING AND FURTHER GAVE THEIR CONSENT TO PROBATE THE SAID PROPERTY IN FAVOUR OF “V” .
THE WITNESSES TO THE WILL ARE IN FAVOUR OF “V”
NOW QUERY;
WHERE DOES “V” STAND WHAT ARE HIS CHANCES OF WINNING THE CASE . ?
What actions can be taken against “B “ ?
WHAT IS THE AUTHENTICITY AND VALUE OF THE ARBITRAL AWARD ?
SHOULD THE EXECUTION OF THE AWARD BE FILED OR WAIT FOR THE DECISION OF THE PROBATE COURT ?
IS THE AWARD OF THE ARIBTRATOR ON THE BASIS OF SETTLEMENT DIRECTING FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND IN THE EVENT OF FAILURE TO DO SO AWARD OF DAMAGES VALID OR NOT .
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Delay in filing execution petition
sir, i need help.
are there any judgements condoning delay in filing execution petition. execution petition is not filed even after 12 years of decree order for eviction from house. it happened due to the death of the petitioner. and it was not known to the legal heirs of petitioner.