Ancestral property

IF documentary evidence is available that Father has paid for the property out of his own earned funds, THEN a partition suit can be filed with the local civil court, by the other two brothers.

Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal
https://hemantagarwal21.blogspot.in/?view=sidebar

If the property was purchased on your brother's name,though your father financed it, the same becomes your brother's own property, he can very well sell the property as per his own wish.  The partition suit will not fetch any good result though it will run for over 10 years, instead, an amicable talks may fetch some remuneration. Try this through a sitting involving elders.

1. If you can prove that the said property has been purchased from the und of your father then you can file a partition suit claiming that it is actually your father's property purchased in your brother's name,

2. It will be a tough case to win.

Thank you so much for the interesting replies received.

Now, as per property has already been sold, can we also claim share in this particular property as under: 

As our mother passed away long back, this same elder brother alongwith his wife  sat in the place of parents in his younger brother's marriage and was a part of kanya danam.  As per Hindu family, he also becomes the father/Head of the family is it not?. Can we claim any remedy through this point.  

The theory of elder brother becoming "father of family" after "kanya danam" rituals, is bordering hallucination.   The court of law does not recognise hallucinating theories.

Endless questions, is not going to give any new lawful remedies.

Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal
https://hemantagarwal21.blogspot.in/?view=sidebar

Rightly observed and advised by learned Hemant Agarwal, nothing more to add.

There are three points to be answered relating to this query:--

One. The father had purchased the property in the name of elder son with the help of ancestral funds.

Two. The father had purchased the property in the name of elder son with an intention to  purchase for all the three sons. 

Three.  The father had purchased the property in the name of elder son with an intention to the exclusive enjoyment of elder brother. 

I welcome, on behalf of author, clarification from the learned experts on the above points separately and elaborately. What will be the position of law on each point.

Mr. Ravinder P

Still we have not lost hope. 

One more fact is that this property was purchased in the name of our elder brother by our father. At the time of purchase the other two brothers were minor. Unfortunately, my father has not done any activity after the purchase and  just left the property as it is. Taking advantage of this, the elder brother has got the khatha done and has sold it without even informing anyone.   

Originally posted by : Ravinder.P
	There are three points to be answered relating to this query:-- One. The father had purchased the property in the name of elder son with the help of ancestral funds. Two. The father had purchased the property in the name of elder son with an intention to  purchase for all the three sons.  Three.  The father had purchased the property in the name of elder son with an intention to the exclusive enjoyment of elder brother.  I welcome, on behalf of author, clarification from the learned experts on the above points separately and elaborately. What will be the position of law on each point.

PRESUMING:
1.  That father purchased property from "ancestral funds",  THEN the entire property would come within the defination of "ancestral property" and all the residual legal heirs of the ancestors, would be entitled to the beneficiary rights over the said ancestral property purchased using the ancestral funds.

2.  IF it can be proved that it is an ancestral property (using the above theory),  THEN all the family members (means all the three brothers) are equally & lawfully entitled to the ancestral property (by way of usage or sale proceeds), without reference to any sole rights of the elder brother  .OR.  irrespective of the fact that the father purchased property in only elder brothers name (who had attained 18 years - majority) and ignorantly could not include the two brothers name, just simply because the two brothers, were minors when property was purchased.

3.  IF it is ancestral property, THEN it can NEVER be said that the ancestral property was only for the benefit /enjoyment of the elder brother, which would mean that the other two brothers would be deprived of their ancestral rights, which in turn can never be the intention  .OR.  within the meaning of ancestral property /rights.

Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal
https://hemantagarwal21.blogspot.in/?view=sidebar

To Mr. Hemath Agarwal

I made a mistake in questioning.  As far as Point No.1.  I got clarification But as far as the Points No.2 and 3 the father had purchased the property from his self acquired property not using ancestral funds.  Kindly give your advice afresh.

Please  RE-READ, the above answers,  this time more   S-L-O-W-L-Y.
Your questions have already been explained.

Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal
https://hemantagarwal21.blogspot.in/?view=sidebar