Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

sathyanrayana J (sse)     25 February 2015

Self acquired property

Hi,

My father purchased  2 acres of land on my name when I was 5 years old.

My father is expired in 1995. 

would this property is considered as self acquired? 

Thanks !



Learning

 8 Replies

Anjuru Chandra Sekhar (Advocate )     25 February 2015

If he purchased land in your name what is the problem?  Are you asking the question - is it self acquired property for him or for you?  Let me answer both questions.  If the question is - is it self acquired property for him, then the answer is if it is in his name it is self acquired property otherwise NO.  As he purchased the land in your name it is your property because his intention is clear that title should remain with you and you should enjoy that property.  Second if the question is - is it self acquired property for me, then the answer is no it is not self acquired property for you because you have not purchased it with your money, that means you are not the one who acquired the property therefore it is not self acquired property for you.  It cannot (also) be said that it is property devolved by succession because you did not get that property on his death, it is in your very name.  Therefore it is neither self acquired property for him nor for you.

1 Like

sathyanrayana J (sse)     25 February 2015

If this is neither self acquired property for him nor for me then my family members can get share in this right, as per below SC judgement

Hindu Law – "Joint Family property" or "Self acquired property"
In the absence of any division in the family, joint family continues as joint family. Burden to prove that properties purchased by Kartha/self acquired lies on the person claiming so.

 

file is attached

 

 

 


Attached File : 670532654 11003982 828617677205538 872081824 n.jpg downloaded: 227 times

krishna (business)     26 February 2015

It is purchased by your father with his funds and you have no capacity on the date of purchase as you are 5years old...  so this property is inheritable to all the legal heirs of your father as per law

sathyanrayana J (sse)     26 February 2015

Sir,

 

I need some reference section or supreme court judgement on this. i.e definition of self aquired property.

Could you please provide me?

 

Thanks


(Guest)

just to get clarification -does it mean, if some one is a minor, and a property is purchased specifically for the minor on his name, then the entire legal heir is still eligible for a share of it just because of the fact the holder was a minor at the time of purchase...i see some flaw in the rule here or i may be missing something..

Anjuru Chandra Sekhar (Advocate )     26 February 2015

In law of evidence relating to property it is actually the otherway round.  As the property is in your name you will not have any reason to claim or dispute by filing any case.  Others will allege that it is not your property.  And the burden of proof is on them to prove that it belongs to them not to you.  If they fail to prove, the property remains in your name.  As per Transfer of property act, you are called the ostensible owner and your father the real owner.  According to the law of estoppel if your family members have not disputed about your title during his lifetime, they have no right to dispute about it now.  Even the real owner had not objected the property being in your name.  If they cannot present any evidence to the effect that he intended that the property belongs to everyone in the family though it is in your name, your title in the property cannot be taken away easily.

Anjuru Chandra Sekhar (Advocate )     26 February 2015

Regarding the caselaw - You see in our system, the verdict comes in accordance with the caselaws cited by the advocates.  The question that often haunts me is if the case is presented by a different lawyer giving different case-laws and different arguments would the verdict have been different.  If the answer for this question is yes., then there is every reason for doing away with the rule of Res Judicata.  However, if we do away with the Rule of Res Judicata, courts cannot take any fresh cases anymore because everybody will come and file a case saying, "my lawyer did not cite correct case law during trial court stage because he is not a good lawyer that is why the verdict was like that, now I have appointed a good and better lawyer I want the case be heard from his point of view so that i get justice". 

 

 

One same facts when a judgment is delivered by court, no other court can admit a case on the same facts.  But it is possible that if the arguments presented were different, case-laws cited were different, then verdict could be different.:)

sathyanrayana J (sse)     27 February 2015

Thank you so much for detailed explanation Chandrasekhar Sir. I do reside in hyderabad. Please provide me your contact number, so that I can contact you for more info


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


Related Threads


Loading