A (is having suit property of 7.0 Acres patta land(registration land) along with other properties) B (Son of A) C (Son of A) B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 C1 C2 C3 (Sons of B) (Sons of C) 1. 'A' Died in 1973. 2. Partition of properties happened in 1977 between B & C. But the 7.0 Acre land was not portioned due to dispute with 3rd party. In the partition deed it was mentioned that the 7.0 Acre land was kept joint since it is not possible to partition. 3. 'C' died in 1987. The 7.0 Acre land which was under dispute was resolved by B and taken over. But the name of ‘A’ only continued. 4. 'B' died in 1991. Partition of properties happened in 1992 between B1 to B6 as given below. B1-House I B2-3.5 Acre Land out of 7.0 Acre B3-3.5 Acre Land out of 7.0 Acre B4-House II B5-Cash&Gold B6-Other lands 5. Names of B2 & B3 entered in ROR records at MRO Office in place of ‘A’ in 1995 on the basis of partition deed between B1 to B6. 6. B3 sold the land in 2002. B2 retained the land and cultivating till date. 7. Now C2 is claiming that the unsold land of 3.5 acres held by B2 belongs to their portion since the land was not portioned by B&C. 8. B2 has got injunction orders from Jr Civil Judge when C2 tried to cultivate the land with support of local persons. C2 went for appeal to Sr Civil Judge and the petition dismissed. Now C2 went to RDO Court appealing that the entries of B2 & B3 in ROR are wrongful. The case is going on now. Also stay obtained by C2 from High Court, Hyderabad on decision of Sr Civil Judge. 9. All persons above are male. Issue belongs to Telangana Area. 10. Please advice whether B2 is having 100% right on entire land. Shall B2 continue to fight? C2 not agreeing for any settlement.
First answer received in 30 minutes.
Lawyers are available now to answer your questions.
1) B2 does not have 100 per cent right on said land
2) 7 acres of land was not partitioned by B and C because suit was pending
3) on suit being resolved property could not have been transferred in names of B2 and B3 only
4) C2 can claim 3.5 acres of land as it was not partitioned by B and C
Dear Querist
as the suit property is related to A who was the absolute owner of the property, having 2 son(B&C) died intestate, hence the property should be divided between B & C which was not happen.
after the death of B & C, the property should be divided between the legal heirs of B & C.
C2 has the legal right to get the share in the property as per rule.
there may be objection on the limitation of filing suit for partition.
Feel Free to Call
If the remaining 7 acres of property was fully acquired by B without giving any share to C then it would be injustice and unlawful.
C's share of properties out of that 7 acres should have been given to his legal heirs.
C2's claim on his behalf and his siblings are justified.
He is entitled to half share out of the 7 acre.
What about B2. B2 has got the 3.5 Acres in his family partition i.e. between B1 to B6. B3 sold his 3.5 acres. If C2's claim is correct and the remaining land of 3.5 acres is being given to C2, then B2 will be the loser in his family partition. Then how it will be justified from B2 point of view. Whether remaining members of B's family has to compensate the loss to B2. Is it possible and will they take it responsible after 20 years of their family partitions. C2 is not ready for any settlement. how to solve this
1) partition was flawed . 7 acres of land could not have been partitioned only among B legal heirs
2) B 2 can claim his share in house and other lands standing in name of deceased father
3) if C2 is not ready for any settlement continue defending the case .
4) B should file suit to set aside partition done among legal heirs of B and claim his proportionate share
B2 has been allotted with 3.5 acres, hence his claim or share in the property has been allocated
If he feels that he has not been given his due share he may go for partition suit seeking his legitimate share in the properties.