Rights of grand sons and grand daughter in grandfather prope

he ( ur eldest brother's son ) can demand his share from his ancestral property. no doubt about it. but if his father and mother are not able to maintain themselves then they can :

(1) file separate suits for maintenance and looking after , under various laws , including sction 125 Code of Criminal Procedure and many other laws covering Hindus and many other laws relating to old and elderly people ,

(2) the expenses done on treatment etc can be charged to the ancestral property or the income from ancestral property

(3) these expenses , maintenance etc  can be made as the first charge on the ancestral property before it is partitioned in the respective second generation

(4) if his father and mother are living on income from the inherited property , then during their life-time , they can take a stay from the partition of the said property

BUT YOU WILL HAVE TO MOVE THE COURT OR DIFFERENT COURTSAND GET A SPECIFIC ORDER-

V K BANSAL - 9899754701- DELHI - VICOR_SOFT@YAHOO.COM

I Agree with Kapil Chandna and Vijay Kumar Bansal.

There is a small clarification from Vijay Kumar Bansal. As per sec. 125(1) (d) of Cr.p.c. it says that "If any person having sufficient means neglects or refused to maintain--his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself".  My doubt is when the elder brother is also  getting share from the ancestral property, whether the elder brother and bhabhi can claim maintenance under the above section from his son. The maintenance is meant for destitute persons who has no property or income to survive.

to reply to Ravinder P. : This is a valid point but it is also , at the same time , misunderstood and misinterpreted. income and assets are different aspects although the legal provision may use the word      ' means' . one does not have to live by selling family property or assets. One must have an income , legal income. That way a beger on the street may have sufficient income and still refuse to maintain his elderly - can he be sued. A thief may have sufficient income or means , ... that way and so on. The income should be such which can be attached by a process of law. The govt of india did not do the real thing which was to be done. It should have setup a corpus fund ( instead of our govt. givings thousands of crores in aid to other countries or as flood releiff ) from which the court could immediately grant maintenance or part maintenance   , as soon as the application for maintenance is made. - v k bansal , ceo@cybermall4all.net , vicor_soft@yahoo.net

I may have to respectfully disagree with the views of my learned friends above.  The author's question is very clear that the property was purchased by his father in the year 1952 and they died intestate in the year 1983 subsequent to which the author and his brother, sister partitioned the property among themselves equally in the capacity of legal heirs to their deceased father.  Therefore the property in their hand will become their own property in which their children will not have any right or entitled to any share during the life time of their father, thus the claim for a share by the son of the  elder brother of the author is illegal and invalid especially during the life time of his father.   This is the legal proposition of law since the property is not ancestral in nature.

The father, if he is not able to maintain himself, he can very well file a petition before a magistrate court seeking maintenance from his son(s).  This is a different subject.