Is property got by partition is self acquired property?


Dear Experts,




One A has got several immovable properties by self acquired means. He has three sons, among them my client is B. A divided his properties among his sons by partition. The partition took place in the year 1962.


At the time of partition my client B was a minor and unmarried. After partition, he separately possessed the property and enjoying the same by paying necessary taxes and transferring the revenue records in his name. My client got married in the year 1965 and two daughters born to him.


Now he wants to sell the property. The intended buyer wants the signature of the two daughters, saying the property is ancestral one. But our contention is that  (1) the client B got property by partition, (2) the properties are originally not the ancestral properties, as B's father A purchased the same out of his earnings, (3) At the time of partition my client B was not married and consequently no children.Therefore it has to be considered as self acquired property of my client B and no need to get the signatures of his daughters. 


In this backdrop, I request the learned seniors and experts to clarify if this stand is correct or not. 


yes for all practical purposes.


Jadhav & Associates

Dear Krish,

Your reasoning is correct but manytimes they buyers, out of utmost precaution wish to have the signatures of other related parties who may create legal hassles in future though may not succeed.

If you have no problem in getting them to sign you may do so as it does not have negative repurcussions for you. However, if is is a problem to get the sisters to sign, then you may also get them to sign as witnesses which will also serve the purpose of the buyer.

Also, just to let you know, if the property is considered ancestral then , even if the person gets married later (after acquiring the property from his parents), the children have a share in the same as per Hindu law.

S Jadhav

practising Advocate

For A the property may be self acquired, but on transfer to B , For B it is an ancestral property, it cannot be his self acquired property.Being bechelor or married  does not effect the status of the property.

Though its ancestral property, if the mutation has been sanctioned in favour of B, he becomes the sole owner of the property for his life and can sell the same without any interference from his legal heirs. 


Once the property has been partitioned in some body's favour, it is treated as his self acquired property  for all practical purposes.






Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


  Search Forum



Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query
Forensics & Evidence     |    x