Property with illegal dispute and title suit

502 votes

In this situation, the person who has filed a title suit for declaration we have to challenge the same suit and filed a counter claim that the above-mentioned property is in my grandfather's name and the person who filed this suit can't be maintainable, moreover we have to file a petition for rejection of the plaint (the suit). before this, you should consult with us with all the documents you have.

Advocate Pijush Roy LawRato

556 votes

Yes, as per Hindu Succession Act, if the property was purchased by your grandfather and remained undivided after his and your father's death, then as Class I heirs, daughters (including granddaughters, if their parent is deceased) may claim a share, provided the succession hasn't been settled. If any granddaughter's parent (son/daughter of the grandfather) is deceased, the legal heirs (including that granddaughter and her children) may be entitled to a share by representation. It's advisable to initiate partition procceed, for further discussion kindly contact me.

Advocate Pallavi Saha LawRato

684 votes

This situation presents a complex legal challenge given the passage of time and the lack of a registered sale despite the transfer of possession. When your grandfather sold the property in 1995 for Rs. 78,800/-, the absence of a formal registration of the sale meant that legal ownership technically remained with him, even though the buyer was given possession. The subsequent illegal capture of the land by a third party and their filing of a title suit against your family further complicates matters. Regarding the financial liability to the original buyer, the starting point for any potential refund would undoubtedly be the original sale consideration of Rs. 78,800/-. However, several other factors will likely be taken into account by a court if this matter were to be litigated. The fact that the buyer was given possession of the land in 1995 and held it for some time would be a consideration. Conversely, the lack of a registered title is a significant point in the buyer's favor, as they never obtained clear legal ownership despite paying for the property. The supervening event of the illegal capture and the title suit also plays a crucial role. This event has created uncertainty and encumbrance on the property, potentially diminishing its value or making it unusable for the original buyer. Consequently, a court might consider factors beyond just the original sale price. These could include adjustments for inflation over the past three decades, the prevailing fair market value of the property at present, and potentially any demonstrable losses or legal expenses incurred by the original buyer due to the incomplete transaction and the subsequent legal complications. While the original sale amount provides a baseline, the final amount you might be liable to return could be significantly higher depending on how a court weighs these various factors and applies relevant legal principles. It is therefore imperative to thoroughly review all documentation related to the 1995 transaction to understand the full extent of your potential liability and the best course of action.

Advocate Salim Javed LawRato