VIRENDER SINGH CHAUHAN 17 August 2023
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Advocate) 17 August 2023
1. Since it was an ancestral property, the son of Ram as a coparcener is entitled for a rightful share in the property. Therefore his claim for his share in the property is not hit by the limitation act.
2. No doubt if the property was divided/partitioned earlier, then the nature of ancestral property will extinguish, b ut why did you mention it as ancestral property in your post?
Since the matter is pending before the apex court, you may wait for the decision.
VIRENDER SINGH CHAUHAN 18 August 2023
1. It is an ancestral property as per existing law at that time and KARAM is coparcener and it was also agreed upon by trial, district and High court. I mentioned as ancestral property because selling it requires legal necessity to be proved.
2. As you mentioned that he is entitled his share being coparcener. How much share is he entitled now ? as he is the only one who filed case and no other coparcener did so. Infact 2 out of 4 coparceners supported the sale deed.