Property owner of 1/4
1 year ago
Hi
My father were 4 brother sisters
2 brothers
2 sisters
Now the property is of 200 gaj
(In that area one floor of 200 gaj is worth 2,50,00,000 - 2,30,00,000)
Land value is 5,00,00,000
Now one brother has got the share of one sister relinquished in his name.
And my father and elder sister has 1/4th share each.
The brother of my father has 2/4 th of share now and we have 1/4 of share.
He wants to pay us and elder sister 1,12,00,000 each and wants us to relinquish our share in his name.
Shall we take this money and relinquish our share
Our aim is to buy another house from the proceeds buy we are not able to find anything with this money.
A.Dear Sir,
The property which is in possession of joint family members the following principles will apply.
------------------
Right To Joint Possession And Right of Pre-emption
The right of 'pre-emption' is given to the owner of immovable property to acquire another immovable property that has been sold to some other person. It is the purchase by one person before all others. ... The objective behind this right is to maintain privacy and prevent strangers to come in neighbour or in a family.
There are two views in this matter. The purchaser has no right to joint possession of the property compelling partition. He can sue all other coparceners for that purpose. [32]
If the vendee has obtained possession, the other coparceners can get him ejected by a suit. All that the purchaser is entitled to in such a suit is a declaration that he is entitled to the share of the coparcener against whom the decree has been passed.
The Bombay High Court has a different approach. It gives some discretion to the court in the matter of ejectment of a stranger purchaser. In BhauLaxman v. BudhaManku [33] the court laid down three rules:
First, if a purchaser stranger of the undivided interest of a coparcener in a joint family property is out of possession, he should not be given joint possession with the other coparceners but should be left to his remedy of a suit for partition.
Secondly, on the other hand if the purchaser has obtained possession of the property, a coparcener who has been excluded may obtain joint possession with the purchaser.
Thirdly, the purchaser in possession need not be ejected in a suit for recovery of possession brought by an excluded coparcener. The matter should be decided on merits because he is not a trespasser. In a suitable case he may be declared to be entitled to hold (pending partition) as a tenant-in-common with other coparceners.
The issue came to be discussed by Supreme Court in M.V.S. Manikayala Rao v. M. Narasimhaswami [34] . The court held that it is well settled that a purchaser in such a case cannot claim to be put in joint possession with the other coparceners. He has only the right to ask for general partition of the joint property.
The property which is in possession of joint family members the following principles will apply.
------------------
Right To Joint Possession And Right of Pre-emption
The right of 'pre-emption' is given to the owner of immovable property to acquire another immovable property that has been sold to some other person. It is the purchase by one person before all others. ... The objective behind this right is to maintain privacy and prevent strangers to come in neighbour or in a family.
There are two views in this matter. The purchaser has no right to joint possession of the property compelling partition. He can sue all other coparceners for that purpose. [32]
If the vendee has obtained possession, the other coparceners can get him ejected by a suit. All that the purchaser is entitled to in such a suit is a declaration that he is entitled to the share of the coparcener against whom the decree has been passed.
The Bombay High Court has a different approach. It gives some discretion to the court in the matter of ejectment of a stranger purchaser. In BhauLaxman v. BudhaManku [33] the court laid down three rules:
First, if a purchaser stranger of the undivided interest of a coparcener in a joint family property is out of possession, he should not be given joint possession with the other coparceners but should be left to his remedy of a suit for partition.
Secondly, on the other hand if the purchaser has obtained possession of the property, a coparcener who has been excluded may obtain joint possession with the purchaser.
Thirdly, the purchaser in possession need not be ejected in a suit for recovery of possession brought by an excluded coparcener. The matter should be decided on merits because he is not a trespasser. In a suitable case he may be declared to be entitled to hold (pending partition) as a tenant-in-common with other coparceners.
The issue came to be discussed by Supreme Court in M.V.S. Manikayala Rao v. M. Narasimhaswami [34] . The court held that it is well settled that a purchaser in such a case cannot claim to be put in joint possession with the other coparceners. He has only the right to ask for general partition of the joint property.
Helpful
Helpful
Share
Read Related Answers
Agriculture Land Purchased in Gujarat from Non-Farmer Seller
Dear Sir,
Please consult local advocate who is well acquainted with local laws particularly revenue laws otherwise you may be mislead.
Registered legal entity as nominee of chs flat Mumbai
Dear Sir,
Registered legal entity may be nominated but it cannot sell the property after the death of such title owner and it goes to the legal heirs of title owners unless the legal entity get Gift D...
Sc st land purchase by obc mp dist narmdapuram
Dear Client,
Section 42 of the SC, ST Act, 1989 prohibits the sale of SC land without approval. This law was enacted to protect the interests of the SC/ST tribe. However, you can acquire SC/ST land b...
Property share
Dear Sir,
Under the Muslim law, there are three classes of heirs
• SHARERS, they are entitled to a prescribed share of the inheritance. In case of a man’s property, his wife/wives are the sharers of...
Hiring of professionals as executor of a will
Dear Sir,
Yes, the payment to the executor starts only after the death of testator of the Will and not earlier to it.
Read Blogs on Property
Property Lawyers
Find Lawyers by Location
