Father dying intestate, can son alienate property for legal

since he had died intestate the property would have devolved in equal shares on class 1 heirs (i.e) over his wife, mother (if alive at that time) and children

so without any of the legal heirs relinguishing their rights over their share the transfer done over the son alone is illegal and thereby the proprty transfer that followed is also illegal

the daughter is right in filing a case.

this is not ancestral property.so there is no karta.

as said earlier the son had no rights to alienate the property

Sir, How come after the death of the father, the property was transferred in the son's name? After father's death it should devolve on all the class 1 heirs as such in equal shares. Warm Regards Kapil Chandna Adv 9899011450

Please let me know, In the above case what if Father’s property belongs to his fathers property.  Son got the property to his name in 1988 without sister concern. Son sold property due to lost his Govt job due to misappropriation of money, taking care of his mother & family and alienated the property in 1990 for legal necessity. Daughter was married before 1988. Mother (M) died 2008. Now Daughter (D) filed case for property.

In this case, is Son (S) can be considered as Karta and alienate property due to above legal necessity?

If not as karta, can Son(S) alienate property due to legal necessity?

There is no legal necessity in this case. If the son lost his job due to misappropriation of money then it is his concern. He cannot now misappropriate the family property just because he is jobless. Even if the property was the grandfather's then also unless there is a clear HUF formed, the property has to be equally divided  between all Class 1 heirs including Wife, Son and Daughter.

He was dismissed by department due to misappropriation of money, but that should be proved right just allegation cannot make a person guilty… In Criminal case on misappropriation of money in 2011 he got a judgement in court that he is not guilty. Since he was the kartha in 1990, to maintain the house he had no other option other than alienation of the property. If I am wrong, on what legal necessity karta can alienate the property.

Experts please reply to my above question.

First case is is not a case of HUF, and you cannot assume ownership as Karta. Secondly maintenance of family is not necessity, though medical treatment of sick HUF member can be a necessity. Thirdly, even if criminal charges are not proved dismissal by the department is done only after due process and civil charges are proved before dismissal. Therefore, even if you were not convicted by the criminal court, the charge of misappropraition will stand as it has been proved through departmental proceedings.