Deny allegations made
take the plea that it was Sita self acquired property
entire sale consideration was paid by sita
property was not bought in Sita name by her husband for benefit of joint family
Property purchased by husband in the name of wife
Sita purchased an agriculture land from Gopal in 1965 and paid the entire sale consideration 3000/- and seller acknowledged the same. Both parties made the agreement of sale and kept Sita in the Posession thereon. Gopal is not only a seller but also adopted father for Sita as well. Sita by occupation was doing agriculture and household. Gopal died in 1992 without doing Sale Deed. Sita's husband Rama died in 1994. The property was muted through ROR Act in MRO office in 1996 by Revenue Department on Sita's Name. Sita has 2 Sons and 2 Daughters and 2 Grandsons for ElderSon and 1 Son for Younger Son. Sita did the Gift Deeds of 2 Acres for the 2 Grandsons of Elderson in 2003 and inturn Grandsons sold the property to Third party in 2006. Sita did the Gift Deed of 1 Acre for Elder Son by gift deed in 2008 and passed Away. Now, Younger Son's son and Aunties are claiming that Sita has no rights as the source of funds were from her Father - Rama. Rama passed away "Intestate" claiming that sita was house wife only with no income to buy property. Need Expert Advise.
Asked 4 years ago in Property Law
Religion: Hindu
5 Answers
Sita's property is a self acquired or considered as a property of her husband. Since the Property1 was already disposed off 15 Years back to Third Party when Sita was alive and second property was gifted through registered dee to Elder Son in 2009 and passed away in 2009 ... Please advise.
Asked 4 years ago
Claim if any made by aunties and grand son is barred by limitation
property was sold 15 years back and claim is barred by limitation
The dispute raised by the claimants now is not maintainable because the property was transferred to Sita and she was in possession and enjoyment of the same ever since the date of this transfer , therefore she can be considered as an absolute owner of the property even by adverse possession.
Moreover if at all the claim for ownership has to be made, it was her husband who should have claimed ownership during his lifetime whereas he was living with her till his death without making any claim for the property .
However the claim is now made by the irrelevant people, hence the dispute may not be legally maintainable.
Please remember that this property never belonged to Rama anytime nor there's any documentary evidence to establish that this property belonged to Rama, hence the claim for a share in the property made by irrelevant people based on his intestate death is not tenable in law.
There was no dispute about the title to the property during Sita's lifetime nor at the time of transferring the property by her to a third party.
Therefore the claim for a share on some flimsy and fake reason is not maintainable in law or would be entertained by court.
As it's a self acquired property so no one can object on sitas title. Only objection can be taken by person who had the source of funds at the time of purchase. Presently no one can claim it
