Remedy against forgery of Court : Family court has forged expert’s report

The Family Court Judge has forged the child's interaction report. The child's physical school, he cannot be removed from school just like this. What remedy do I have against forgery of court in child custody matters? Child is now a 14+ years male child. Interim custody given to me (father) by Delhi High Court in 2015. For 7 years the child has been studying in Gurugram. Psychologists' reports say the child wants to live with father. The family court has accepted the forged report. 

It Has passed an order to give the child in custody of the mother till the final decree. Need immediate reversal of the order and matter be remanded back to Family Court. Legal remedies to restrain the opposite party from using coercive means. Can an injunction be granted before filing of appeal? Can a mother take away the child without an execution order? How long does the execution proceedings take?

You should immediately file a petition before the High Court under Section 151 of the code of civil procedure (cpc). Act of forgery by a family court judge is a very serious matter. You are entitled to get immediate interim relief and stay of the erroneous order passed by the family court judge.

At the very first hearing, the high court may stay the effect of the family court’s order. The high court may remand the case to any other judge. The current order of family court is an interlocutory order hence, you cannot file appeal in high court. Instead of it, you should invoke the inherent power of the court under section 151 cpc. No execution is necessary for the interlocutory order. 

Also read: Custody of child below five years

The family court can reject the report, if any, filed by the expert. Because, the court is not bound by the opinion of experts. But manipulation or forgery of a report is an independent act. This is a non judicial act therefore, the high court may personally liable the judge of family court. 

The high court may take stern action against the family court judge. That action may be beyond the ambit of section 151 of the code of civil procedure. The high court may pass a structure against the judge and seek clarification from him towards the alleged forgery. If the high court finds that matter is true it can take disciplinary action and initiate criminal proceedings against the family court judge for the forgery.

Whether prostitute’s customer commits offence

Whether prostitute’s customer commits offence. Police is calling prostitute’s customer. The police said that it is an offence under Section 3/4/5/7 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act. I want to know whether prostitute’s customer commits offence if he had sex with her? Mrs X is doing some sort of Pimp/Brothel. Call Girls put their mobile no to her. Some men customers have been calling girls from Mrs X Pimp for many years. One day in the past 12 days  Mr. Maximus who was sometimes a customer in past few months got information that Mrs X was taken out from her home when two arranged partners just arrived in her home. The information said no indulgence/unclothing was yet happened about the two arranged partners. Police abducted/arrested the two women and seized Mrs. X mobile handset for investigation it said. On that past 12 day from the incident, Mr. Maximus was called by Police to record witness statements in their Station. 

Mr Maximus a govt employee felt disturbed so he denied as he never knew Mrs X as doing such. Knowing as just one acquaintance. But Police said don’t lie, we had a conversation (about your asking/giving call girl) on the seized mobile handset but Police did not show that. Police did not tell even the case number but simply said we arrested two women under human trafficking that is serious. After another 4 days i.e. 16 days from the incident day, Mr Maximus learned Mrs X was released on Bail from Jail.   

She said two of them (both women) were not in jail but only she is in jail and bailed. Police did not take them to Court/Magistrate yet from the incident day also. But she said court date hearing to be in the future 13.03.2022. She said she did not know the case number and did not get any paper from the Police so far. 

Now all circumstances/events/story had become doubtful and cannot be confirmed. (1) Is Mr Maximus govt employee status in danger? If to apply anticipatory bail when to do, how to do without actually knowing the matter & case number? Ignoring as previous customer will be good or bad. What steps are necessary. Or, does it seems the Police do things correctly and seriously? Crime of Mrs X and Customer (anyone) who are at crime and the degree of punishment?

There is no law which makes the sex with prostute an offence. Hence, customer of prostitute does not commit any offence if he had sexual relations with her. Both are adults and of sound mind. They are doing sex with their free consent. Free consent of parties towards sexual intercourse does not amount to rape. 

But running a brothel house is illegal and punishable under the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act (ITP Act). A person who is running a brothel house or inducing a person for the sake of prostitution commits offence under ITP Act. In Goenka Sajan Kumar v. State of A.P. AIR ONLINE 2014 AP 5 the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that:

Running a brothel house, acting as a pip for personnel in brothel house, procuring, inducing or in dicing any person for sake of prostitution, earning on premises where prostitution is carried out are offence under ITP Act.

Mr Maximus was a customer of a prostitute. He never indulged in any activity as mentioned above, therefore, he has not committed any offence. Police cannot call him an accused. A person being the prostitute’s customer commits no offence under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956.

If Mr. Maximus is named as accused by the police, then he should immediately file a petition in the High Court for the quashing of the FIR. The High Court may quash the FIR if it finds that Mr Maximus was only a customer. In the Bhajan Lal’s case the Supreme Court has held that when no offence is made out against the accused the High Court should quash the criminal proceeding.

Real estate agent made false promise: How to take legal action?

Real estate agent made false promise: How to take legal action? A real estate agent has made false promise about the covered car parking. While purchasing a flat, the sales team committed to giving covered car parking. Now they are asking for additional costs for covering that parking. I have a meeting recording in which a sales person clearly says they will provide covered parking. CRM team not supporting. We showed the CRM team audio recording still not taking our side. How can we complain about this ? How can social media help in this ? 3) How can real estate companies bring reality to social media?

You should file a complaint before the RERA Authority established under The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. False information or promise about the real estate project is strictly prohibited under the RERA Act. 

According to section 10 of the RERA Act, the real estate agent shall not make a false or misleading representation concerning the services. If he does so, he shall be punished under Section 62 of the Act. 

If any real estate agent fails to comply with or contravenes the provisions of section 9 or section 10, he shall be liable to a penalty of ten thousand rupees for every day during which such default continues, which may cumulatively extend up to five per cent. of the cost of plot, apartment or buildings, as the case may be, of the real estate project, for which the sale or purchase has been facilitated as determined by the Authority.

Section 62 of RERA Act

Hence, you should prefer a complaint to the real estate regulatory authority against the false promises of real estate agent. If the RERA finds that the promoter has instigated the agent to make such false promises the promoter will also be punished under Section 60 of the Act. 

If the promoter provides false information or contravenes the provisions of section 4, he shall be liable to a penalty which may extend up to five per cent of the estimated cost of the real estate project, as determined by the Authority.

Section 60 of RERA Act

Don’t involve yourself in the blame game on social media platforms. Be sincere and take appropriate action against the agent and promoter under the provisions of RERA Act. Real estate agent made false promise and you have evidence to prove it. This is sufficient to initiate proceeding under the RERA.

Violation of agreement to sell : owner is selling land to another person

Violation of agreement to sell : owner is selling land to another person. The owner is selling his land in violation of agreement to sell. How can I stop this and protect the property? I have paid three lakh rupees as the earnest money for purchase of the said land. The owner has executed an agreement to sell. As per the agreement I have to pay the remaining price in two years. I am ready to pay the dues instantly but the owner is refusing. Now I came to know that he is selling his land. Only six months have gone to the execution of an agreement to sell. 

I have eighteen months to obey the agreement and pay the consideration of this land. The act and conduct of the owner is against the terms of agreement. I have told him to give me two days to buy this land but he has refused. He is eager to sell the land because he is getting a better price than me. Please suggest whether I have any remedy? Can I stop him from selling this land?

The owner cannot sell this land in violation of the agreement to sell. These facts are undisputed in your case and they will form the basis for enforcement of the agreement. 

  • The owner has received three lakh rupees as earnest money.
  • He has executed an agreement to sell in your favour.
  • The agreement to sell gives you a time period to pay the remaining price. 
  • You have eighteen months to pay the dues.
  • You are ready to pay that amount.
  • As per the agreement to sell the owner will execute the sale deed after receiving the remaining price. 

An agreement to sell confers some right to the vendee (proposed buyer). After the execution of an agreement to sell the vendee can restrict the owner to sell this land to any other person. Such an agreement binds the vendor (owner) to obey his promise made in the agreement to sell. 

Remedy if vendor violates agreement to sell

If the vendor violates the agreement to sell the vendee can file a civil suit for the specific performance of the contract. Specific performance of the contract is an equitable relief provided under the Specific Relief Act 1963. Through it, the vendee can enforce the exact terms of the agreement. He can compel the vendor to sell the land to him.  

You should send a legal notice to the vendor If you have information that he is selling this land to any other person. In the said notice you should inform him that you are ready to buy this land. If he does not respond or refuses to sell the land, then you should file a civil suit under Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

You have fulfilled all the legal requirements for filing a suit for specific performance of the contract. These are the mandatory requirements:

  • A valid and concluded contract (agreement to sell is duly executed by the parties)
  • Plaintiff is ready and willing to perform their part of contract (you are ready to pay the remaining price)
  • The plaintiff has, in fact, performed their part of the contract (you have paid the earnest money).
  • It is equitable to grant the relief of specific performance to the plaintiff against the defendant in relation to the suit property. 
  • The specific performance of the contract will not cause any kind of hardship to the defendant (vendor/owner).

Thus you should file a civil suit for the injunction and specific performance of the contract. You should pray for injunction as an interim relief thereby restricting the owner from transferring this land until order of the court.

Wife not lived in the matrimonial home cannot claim alternate accommodation

Wife not lived in the matrimonial home cannot claim alternate accommodation. Is this a justice to pass an order of alternate accommodation to the wife when she has committed violence. Wife not lived in the matrimonial home can she claims alternate accommodation Marriage took place on 17.06.2014 and we spent only 16 days together out of which 09 days on honeymoon, it was alleged that we threw her out of the alleged matrimonial home as before marriage that we both parties agreed that bridegroom has promised to keep her seperate house, yes i had sent an email as marriage proposal stating that " I forgot to add my new flat address not mentioned anywhere in writing that my owned house" It was a common family property purchased in the name of my real sister.   

She is in a continuous job under govt service earning 45000/- per month. But the Magistrate passed an order of alternate accommodation to the wife. No fact of domestic violence has been proved in her evidence /cross. All allegations are blanket no dates no specific allegations no medical evidence not annexed with any Medical reports. Despite being a postgraduate under Journalism and working with Lok Sabha tv maintaining an iphone equipped with every latest gadget she has. She has been going to her office after returning from honeymoon wholly paid by me. 

The honeymoon fact was completely hidden by her that we only asked several questions. In her DV Act petition U/s 12 she has not asked for maintenance rather ask for 50 Lakhs as domestic violence compensation along with alternate accommodation. She has mentioned in her cross examination that she had told about such domestic violence to her mother and brother but she never put them under the cross examination. 

Now today the judge has passed the judgement to pay 10000/- to pay as monthly for accommodation from the date of application i.,e 08 years ago. Along with 25000/- one time payment as mental agony caused to her by us. I was not cross examined by the complainant lawyer at all despite 09 months time passed. But the judge has mentioned that I did not tender my evidence by way of affidavit. 

Hence she is not considering it. But, point to be noted that äll documents copy of email with dowry item list have been exhibited, but the Judge has not pointed this out in her judgement order. No proof has been adduced by the complainant to substantiate her allegation of domestic violence caused to her by us. Yet, the judge has given her final relief of monthly payment of rs. 10000/- as alternate accomodation from the date of complaint.

Your wife had lived in her matrimonial home for only seven days. She has falsely filed a case of domestic violence after concealing several relevant facts. The court cannot give any relief under the Domestic Violence Act when the wife has spent only seven days in the shared household.

A person aggrieved of domestic violence can seek remedy under the Domestic Violence Act. It is almost impossible to say that a newly wedded wife has faced immense violence in her matrimonial home in the first seven days of marriage. Such an incident is against the common course of natural events as happens in the Indian family.

The court should presume under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act that the alleged acts have not happened. When the aggrieved person is making such a bald or unusual allegation the Magistrate must take extra caution when providing relief to her.  The Magistrate while passing the order of alternate accommodation must satisfy the fact of:

  • Wife lived in the matrimonial home with some permanency.
  • She has faced violence in the matrimonial home.
  • Wife has been subjected to violence on several occasions. 
  • Living in a matrimonial home is dangerous to her life and limb.
  • Wife cannot maintain separate accommodation out of her own sources.

Alternate accommodation when wife not lived in the matrimonial home 

Alternative accommodation is a special remedy under the DV Act. When the wife claims right of residence in a matrimonial home, she must prove that she has the intention to live therein. When the wife is living apart and spent only seven days in a matrimonial home in eight years of marriage, it proves that she has no intention to live with husband and in-laws in the shared household. 

Section 2(q) of DV Act clarifies that the aggrieved wife or a female living in relationship in the nature of marriage may also file a complaint under Section 12. When your wife is not living in the matrimonial home, she cannot claim any relief provided under the DV Act.

In Satish Chander Ahuja V. Sneha Ahuja [Aironline 2020 SC 784] the Supreme Court has held that mere fleeting living in shared household does not entitle the wife to claim any relief under the DV Act. The court has held that:

The words "lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship" have to be given its normal and purposeful meaning. The living of a woman in a household has to refer to a living which has some permanency. Mere fleeting or casual living at different places shall not make a shared household. The intention of the parties and the nature of living including the nature of the household have to be looked into to find out as to whether the parties intended to treat the premises as a shared household or not.

Thus, your wife cannot get any relief in the Domestic Violence Act because she has lived in the shared household. Your wife has manipulated several vital pieces of evidence. The court has not appreciated the evidence while providing relief to her.

The Judgement is apparently erroneous. You should file an appeal in the Court of Session under section 29 of DV Act. There is a thirty days limitation period for filing appeal against the order of the Magistrate. You'll get justice from the appellate court because seven days stay in the shared household does not entitle her to claim relief under DV Act. Fleeting stay also shows that she had no intention to live in matrimonial home.

Mud road on my land :  How to get it back?

Government has laid a mud road on my land a few years ago. I have all documents stating the land where the road is laid belongs to me. We do not know about this. How to get my land back? I have all documents stating the land where the road is laid belongs to me. Can I put a fence in the middle of the road?

The government cannot build a mud road on private land. If it is still your land then you should file a civil suit against the government for the possession of land and permanent injunction. First you should file an application to the Tehsildar for the measurement of your land. 

The measurement is necessary to find out where your land is situated. If the Tehsildar demarcates your land in the area of mud road then it shall prima facie prove that the mud road is made on your land. 

Thereafter, you should send a legal notice to the government under Section 80 of the code of civil procedure. In the said notice you should demand from the government to transfer your land with compensation (mesne profit). The government will compensate you because it has been taking illegal possession on your land. 

If the government does not act to your notice within 60 days then you should file a civil suit. Notice under Section 80 code of civil procedure is mandatory in the suit against the government. 

You cannot put a fence on government land despite that it is your land. The public road prima facie proves that it is government land. Now the burden of proof lies upon you to prove that it is your land. Unless you discharge this burden you cannot interfere in the government road. 

Hence you should wait till the decision of the court. If the court passes a decree in your favour and declares that it is your land then you are entitled to get possession. After taking possession you can use this land for any legal purpose.

Conviction in violation of Section 50 NDPS Act

Please advise whether conviction in violation of Section 50 NDPS Act is valid? I have any remedy against the conviction in violation of Section 50 NDPS Act. On 2nd April 2018 Mr. Takunichi was on his way to Changlang from Itanagar travelling in a white Scorpio bearing registration No. XXXX. His friend Mr. Dikunima was also accompanying him. On their way to Changlang, they were signalled to stop by the Assam Police on Dibrugarh Highway. Upon stopping the police inquired them as to the origin and destination of their travel. On being told that they were going to Changlang, the police sub inspector Mr. Akasuni, who is also notoriously known for extracting money from passengers asked them to open their boot space of the car so that they could conduct a check. 

Due to the frequent harassment by Assam Police over Arunachalee Passengers, Mr. Takunichi resisted the conduction of the checking and said that they were getting late for an urgent work in changlang and also drawn the attention of the police to the fact that other cars were neither being stopped nor being checked. Both of them, despite getting late, got out of the car. 

However, Mr. Akasuni conducted the search in presence of three people Mr. Hasan who was a traveller and two head constables Mr. Puri and Mr. Aminoor. Upon the search a packet was found in the boot space area underneath its cover. The packet consisted of 500 grams of opium like substance. While the packet of the substance was in the hand of the Mr. Akasuni.

Mr. Takunichi got into the car and attempted to flee the scene, on that Mr. Aminoor tried stopping Takunichi by running and standing in front of the car. However, Takunichi did not stop, he hit Aminoor and as a result Aminoor fell on the ground hitting his head. Takunichi fled the scene leaving Dikunima behind. Mr. Dikunima was arrested by the Police. Aminoor died later in the hospital due to internal bleeding as per the postmortem report. 

The sub inspector Mr. Akasuni registered an FIR numbered 000 under the provisions of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic substances Act 1985 (NDPS) and Indian Penal Code and handed over the accused and case to Arunachal Police at Itanagar police station, capital complex. The Incharge of the Police station was Mr. Abdul who was also a good friend of Mr. Akasuni. Mr. Abdul appointed Ms. Yami, Sub inspector as the Investigating Officer. 

A non-bailable warrant was issued against Mr. Takunichi. Later on Takunichi was arrested by Itanagar Police on 18th August 2018 and upon interrogation, he stated that he feared that Assam Police would arrest him and not afford him opportunity to talk to his relative or defence. He also stated that he feared that his Right to Life under Article 21 would be violated and that he would not be afforded his procedural rights as provided in Code of Criminal Procedure. 

Both the accused were produced before the magistrate on 20th August 2018 and investigation was initiated. A seizure report mentioning ‘seizure of Opium like substance and the car’ was prepared by Ms. Yami. The Opium like substance was sent for forensic test to the State Forensic Lab, Itanagar. As per the forensics expert the opium like substance was made by deriving the unripe seed pods of the opium poppy and that the substance was prepared as per the process called laudanum. 

Further no fingerprints were found on the packet. Upon investigation the following facts were discovered by the Investigating officer. a. That on March 15th 2018 Mr. Takunichi met his friend Mr. Takar at a café regarding some business purpose. Mr. Takar stated that in the meeting, Takunichi said that “nowadays the drug business is very lucrative and being a drug lord would make you rich beyond your imagination”. 

However, Mr. Takar however, laughed it off thinking it was just an unusual comment or joke cracked by his friend Takunichi. That Mr. Takunichi did not have a settled life and relied on contractual works for his livelihood. He was married and had two kids. However, he rarely visited his wife and children who were residing in another district. 

That the scorpio which was used for travelling by Takunichi and Dikunima was actually owned by Ms. Pilu and that Takunichi had hired the car saying that he needs to visit his family and take them to a vacation at a nearby place. Ms. Pilu denied having knowledge of Takunichi being involved in any kind of drug related cases and said that he had agreed to let Takunichi use the car since one of her friends had requested her to do so. Police did not investigate nor did they try to record statements of Ms. Pilu’s Friend. 

As per Dikunima’s statement, he had just met Takunichi in Banktinali on the day of travel and had joined Takunichi to accompany him and also visit Changlang since he had never been out of Itanagar. It was discovered that in fact, Dikunima and Takunichi had a telephonic conversation the prior day of travelling and the records showed that the duration of the call was about 15 minutes. 

The Police filed the Charge sheet as per Section 173 of Cr.P.C. The specific Fast Track Court itself took the cognizance and framed charges under Section 304 A of IPC & Section 17 and section 18 of NDPS Act and commenced the Trial. During the trial, the defence raised the grounds that the appellant was falsely implicated by the Police. Defence also pleaded that the investigation conducted was full of flaws and irregularities and that no fingerprint of the accused was found on the packet. 

Upon further investigation by the IO, it was also discovered that Mr. Takunichi had been previously convicted under Section 18 of NDPS Act in 2011 and was convicted to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a duration of 5 Years. The records were presented by the Prosecutor before the court. The Courts did not delay the process and additional charges were not framed. 

The trial court after hearing the parties and on the basis of the materials on record and also considering the prior conviction of Mr. Takunichi convicted him under section 31 of NDPS Act to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 15 years and to undergo Imprisonment of 2 Years under Section 304 A of IPC. and a fine of Rs. 5 lakhs to the victim’s wife. And convicted Mr. Dikunima under 8 (c) read with section 18 (c) of NDPS Act for Rigorous Imprisonment on Ten Years and a fine of Rs. 5 lakhs. 

Appeal was Preferred in the high Court of Guwahati Itanagar Bench by both the accused on the grounds that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial court has committed error in appreciating the facts and circumstance of the case. The conviction is illegal because it is passed in violation of section 50 NDPS Act. and that court erred in following the proper procedures. And that the mode of search and seizure did not stand legal scrutiny under procedural laws and additionally it was not in compliance with section 50 of NDPS. 

An additional appeal was also filed in the High Court by the Victim Aminoor's Wife Begum Heera for inadequate sentence and inadequate compensation. The High court maintained the conviction and sentences accorded by the Trial Court. What are the issues that can be raised against the state?

You have said that the High Court has maintained the quantum of sentence and conviction. Then how could you contest the appeal. The High Court has already decided you appeal therefore, no chance to counter the state. 

In this situation you should prefer a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court against the decision of the High Court. The facts of your case suggest that the police officer had violated the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. 

It was not a normal search operation. The police officer, on duty, asked to open the boot space with the hope that a psychotropic or narcotics substance may be found there. Police officers know that there is a chance to recover a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance. 

Thus the provision of Section 50 will attract in your case. The search must be conducted in the presence of the Magistrate. Police officers having the duty to maintain law and order, are not empowered to conduct search under NDPS Act.

In State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh AIR 1994 SC 1872 the Supreme Court has held that normal police officers cannot hold search operations if they have the chance to recover any substance relating to the NDPS Act. the court has held that:

If a police officer without any prior information as contemplated under the provisions of the NDPS Act makes a search or arrests a person in the normal course of investigation into an offence or suspected offence as provided under the provisions of Cr. P.C. and when such search is completed at that stage S. 50 of the NDPS Act would not be attracted and the question of complying with the requirements thereunder would not arise.

If during such search or arrest there is a chance of recovery of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance then the police officer, who is not empowered, should inform the empowered officer who should thereafter proceed in accordance with the provisions of the NDPS Act.

Hence, you should move a SLP in the Supreme Court against the decision of the High Court. Search in violation of Section 50 creates doubt regarding the recovery of narcotics. 

When there was a chance to recover narcotics the search operation should be conducted by the officer empowered under the NDPS Act. In your case the search is illegal and violates the provision of section 50. 

If conviction is recorded only on the basis of recovery of narcotics then such a decision is illegal if search was made in violation of Section 50 NDPS Act. In Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat AIR 2011 SC 77 the Supreme Court has held that:

Provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 50 makes it imperative for the empowered officer to "inform" the person concerned (suspect) about the existence of his right that if he so required, he shall be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. Failure to "inform" the suspect about existence of his said right would cause prejudice to him and in case he so opts, failure to conduct his search before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate, may not vitiate the trial but would render the recovery of the illicit article suspect and vitiate the conviction and sentence of an accused, where the conviction has been recorded only on the basis of the possession of the illicit article, recovered from the person during a search conducted in violation of the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. 

You should file a SLP and the Supreme Court may reverse this erroneous decision of the High Court. Your conviction is void because it violates the provision of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The seizure of narcotics seems illegal and doubtful because the police officer was not empowered to conduct search and seize such a substance. The police officers who had conducted the search operation did not inform the accused about his rights under Section 50 NDPS Act. It renders the conviction in violation of section 50 NDPS Act.

Partition of property and evict the tenant simultaneously

Partition of property and evict the tenant simultaneously. Is it possible to partition the property and evict the tenant simultaneously? If not then how to evict the tenant? My late father died without a will regarding his properties, we are 5 legal heirs, I am the eldest son and want to sell my share of property but my younger brother who is living with his family and my mother doesn't allow me to sell my share of property. Hence I want to file a partition suit by metes and bounds with separate possession but I have some doubts pls clarify the following points in detail. 

Some portions of property are occupied by tenants, those are from my late father’s time. Can I file suit without evicting them as other legal heirs don't want to evict them as they even don't want partition of property and saying that without evicting them I can not ask for partition, is it so? 

Anyhow they want to involve them so that a third party can be involved and things becomes complicated and cumbersome, I am in job living in other city and want to sell my share of property, I asked other legal heirs to take my share and give equivalent amount of market price even giving them discount but not ready. They are saying that I can not sell property, only can use property for myself. How is this being a legal heir? I have an equal share in the property and I need money for the purchase of a house for my son, who is living in a rented house in pune. 

Can I file suit for partition of property by metes and bounds making all legal heirs party without involving tenants in any way? will it not be disqualified on the grounds of bad suit? Any time limitations for filing a partition suit can be filed even after 12 yrs. My mother is a senior citizen 70 yrs old and has a share in the property being legal heir and not in favour of partition of property, will this cause in any way disqualification of suit. 

Property in Uttar Pradesh, what is the court fee for partition suite, whether it will be deposited in advance while filing suite or after preliminary decree or admissibility of suite before sending summons to defendants, if during proceedings if opposite party bring out some fraud will Or document what will happen to partition suite will it be converted into testamentary suite, then what about court fee which were deposited for partition suite, will it be refunded? 

Can my mother and sister surrender their undivided share in favour of sons and brothers for this it is sufficient to present an affidavit by their advocates during the proceedings of partition suite so that all three brothers claim for theirs 1/3 shares . Is it ok or any other formality or procedure is required. What will be  the court fee for partition suite in uttar Pradesh for the property of market value of rs- 1Cr. How much time it takes for the court to finally order the partition suit.

You can file a partition suit without prior evicting the tenant from the property. All the legal heirs have equal share in the property. Hence, property will devolve on each heir without evicting the tenants. Currently, all the legal heirs have joint possession and ownership in the property.

They have equal share in the rental income. In the case of joint possession and ownership each heir shall get proportional share in rental income. So, in case of partition of property, each will get equal share in the property. If property is not divisible then the court will sell the property and divide the sale proceeds among the legal heirs.

If property is equally divisible then the tenancy will transfer along with the share. The tenants have rights in the property hence, you should make them defendants  in the partition suit along with all heirs. Not necessary to evict the tenants before filing a partition suit.