Manischa
04 November 2015 at 20:57
Dear Sir,
It was agreed in the Special AGM that the tenant should be introduced to society along with a application. The society will then decide in the monthly meeting to give the NOC. I had agreed to this in the Special AGM. Now I had introduced a tenant to give my flat on rent. I introduced the tenant to the society on the 12th of October and the society told me that October meeting was held on 4th October and now they will decide in the next meeting. When I asked about next meeting they informed me that next meeting date will be decided next month and it can even happen at the end of next month. The society does not decide the next meeting date in the current meeting date. They are deliberately taking advantage of the rule passed in the special AGM which has a loop hole about the monthly meeting date. I loose 2 months rent as the society does not give NOC and also loose the tenant. Can I ask the society to change the rule passed in the AGM or how can I get it changed. Please advice me about the approach...should I write to the registrar of the society or what steps can I take to stop this nonsense of the society.
Anonymous
04 November 2015 at 19:45
My parents died in the year 2009 and 2013. He was having some agriculture land in a village. He didn't make any will. I am not his real son,he adopted me without any ceremony but on my all documents his name is registered As father.
I am having following documents
Pan card, voter card,educational certificate, family certificate issued by tahseeldar.
How should I proceed to make the agricultual property on my name.
I am his only son
SARAVANAN
04 November 2015 at 13:42
Dear Experts,
I have bought a 3BHK apartment in Chennai. There are 7 apartments in the building(3 in first floor - one 3BHK & two 2BHK, 3 in second floor and 1 in ground floor. The ground floor flat in not approved by CMDA). Till now 4 flats are sold and occupied and other 3 are under construction, perhaps no work for long time in the unsold flats.
The problem that I face is a planned discrimination against me by the Builder and one of his aides who owns an adjustment flat to my flat.
All of the flats have small Veranda in front of the main door of the flat. The builder has provided a gate in all flats (except my flat) such that the veranda becomes useful to them privately to leave slippers, shoes and keep other materials.
The builder did not keep this metal gate for my flat and when I asked about it, first he said it will be done in few days, and then the few days turned into few weeks and months. When I got irritated by this and asked him about it, and finally he said that the adjacent flat owner objects to keep a gate for you, so I will not keep the gate. The reason he said is the kitchen windows falls in my veranda area and if a gate is installed he cannot come to my veranda and clean his kitchen window’s outer face if it gets dirt.
After prolonged pressure, one day he just acted like fixing the gate, and the as expected the adjacent flat owner came and started arguing with the builder and me, and finally it went up to police interference. A Sub Inspector came to our building and accessed the situation, and he understood my grievance and the builder and adjacent flat owner’s planned discrimination against me. He said my grievance is genuine, but there is no written commitment about to whom veranda belongs to in any of our construction agreement and it was only an oral agreement that the builder gave us. The Construction agreement prepared by the builder is a just worth a shit and before when we asked the builder to put all the agreed things in the agreement, he said that ‘Sir, this is a standard agreement format we use for all, and we will do every this that we agree to you’ like that.
Then the SI told this is a civil issue, and I cannot give any verdict about it and asked the builder to discuss with all and solve the matter in peaceful manner. The builder agreed that he will resolve this issue by speaking to the adjacent flat owner and keep the gate, but still after nearly one year after this commitment after the issues there is no progress from the builder. Whenever I call him, he will say this tomorrow sir, this week sir, next week sir like that.
The builder got all this vengeance against me because I used to visit he construction site frequently ask him question on the poor quality of material being used many times.
Please suggest me what should I do now. Before I did not move to civil suit as I thought it is not good to take the builder to court which will further strain our relationship which is already not good.
I have following direct questions:
1. Can the builder now change the construction agreement of others flats stating the veranda belongs to them and just leave my construction agreement with no information about it. (Because I used to argue, if you fix gate for others, fix it for me too. If you claim the veranda is a common are then remove all the gates.) I know he cannot do anything with the UDS as it is already registered with government. I own the largest UDS in proposition to my Super buildup area. Can the builder make new construction agreement with increased the super buildup area for the all flat owners (excluding me) giving them the right of the veranda and hence break my claim that it is for all or none.
2. There is an unapproved flat in the ground floor which he is constructing now. Can I make any leverage using that?
3. The building itself is not as per the plan approved by CMDA. Can I use this as any advantage to negotiate?
After all, I don’t want to hurt anyone, but I just want to get my equal right and fix the gate.
Please advise experts. Please…..
Thank you.
sallil desai
04 November 2015 at 13:40
Does an affidavit prepared in 1993 needed be notarised that time, and if not done, then the legality of document stands nil?
The affidavit was prepared for the name transfer of a rented property from fathers name to his 1 son and name bearing signatures of all other remaining sons and daughters confirming their NOC.
Was notory compulsory in 1993 in the state of Maharashtra??
shrikant
04 November 2015 at 12:30
Hello Experts,
I have an Old property [an flat in an apartment]. Have got a buyer & has been agreed for a price of Rs.45 lakhs - full actual value, same will be in the Sale deed.
Now, due to enhance the loan eligibility, the buyer/ his banker is asking for a Sale Agreement amount of Rs.55/-lakhs.
If I do that -
1. Will there be any future Tax liability for the difference 10 lakhs?
2. What precautions should I take?
3. If this is not the correct thing, what should I suggest the buyer/his banker?
Many thanks in advance.
Best Regards,
Shrikant
Devaraj
04 November 2015 at 10:27
Please refer the bellow Article which taken from a news paper: In this regard I have a question that my mother date of birth is 14.07.1962 and my question is she can get share in her mother property, Her mother still alive.
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, originally did not give daughters inheritance rights in ancestral property. They could only ask for a right to sustenance from a joint Hindu family. But this disparity was removed by an amendment to the Act on September 9, 2005. The apex court judgment has now added another disqualification for women regarding their right of inheritance. Until now, they could not ask for a share if the property had been alienated or partitioned before December 20, 2004, the date the Bill was introduced. This judgment makes it imperative for the father to have been alive when the amendment came into force. Settling the law in the wake of a clutch of appeals arising out of high court judgments, a bench of Justices Anil R Dave and Adarsh K Goel recently held that the date of a daughter becoming coparcener (having equal right in an ancestral property) is “on and from the commencement of the Act”. The bench overruled the view taken by some high courts that the amendment being a gender legislation that aimed at according equal rights to the daughter in ancestral property by removing discrimination, should be applied retrospectively. Interpreting statutory provisions, the top court shot down the argument that a daughter acquires right by birth, and even if her father had died prior to the amendment, the shares of the parties were required to be redefined. “The text of the amendment itself clearly provides that the right conferred on a ‘daughter of a coparcener’ is ‘on and from the commencement’ of the amendment Act. In view of plain language of the statute, there is no scope for a different interpretation than the one suggested by the text,” it said. Further, there is neither any express provision for giving retrospective effect to the amended provision nor necessary intent, noted the court, adding “even a social legislation cannot be given retrospective effect unless so provided for or so intended by the legislature”. About applicability of the amendment to the daughters born before it was brought, the bench held that the new law would apply irrespective of the date of birth. “All that is required is that the daughter should be alive and her father should also be alive on the date of the amendment,” it said. The court also held that alienation of ancestral property, including its partition, which may have taken place before December 20, 2004, in accordance with the law applicable at that time, would remain unaffected by the 2005 amendment, and those partitions can no longer be reopened by daughters. - See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/supreme-court-sets-2005-cut-off-on-women-right-to-ancestral-property
Abhinav
04 November 2015 at 06:26
Hello,
I am starting a campsite near pangoot in Nainital. The firm is in partnership with the landowner. I need to know in case I need to change the land usage from agriculture to commercial u/s 143.
Someone suggested that it is not required because the local landowner is partner and it is a tourism business.
Thanks
Abhinav Gupta
9999702666
Lawyer
03 November 2015 at 15:20
Hi,
What is the procedure for getting a guardian appointed and selling the property of a person with unsound mind and has 100% disability.
Plz advice
Rgds
anandakumara
03 November 2015 at 11:50
Maintainability -Daughter rights over the father property
Supreme court judgment on 24th Oct 2015 will restrict the right of women seeking equal share.
Father would have had to be alive on September 9, 2005, if the daughter were to become a co-sharer with her male siblings.
Maintainability of the case regard to cut-off date Sep 9 2005.
Any provisions to file appeal against the judgment.
PIL registered and notice issued Attorney General and National Legal Services Authority may be call on 23Nov 2015.
Please let me know the daughter right over the father self-acquired property, weather maintainable
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Inheritance
Acc to 2005 hindu inheritance law if someones father died before 2005 then daughters are not liable to get any property share. In my case my grandfather died before 2005 but the property is in the name of my grandmother. So can my aunts claim any share in property after demise of grandmother.
Would appreciate any kind of information.