property india inheritance probate religious-law
Can a son be forfeited from inherited property if he refuses to take care of his old parents?
<p>In Indian law, can a son who disowns his old parents, be deprived of his parents' ancestral properties? What about self acquired property of his parents?</p>

<p>In India, members of most religions are allowed to disinherit some or all of their children, but the freedom of Muslims to do so is much more limited. (<a href="https://www.legalservicesindia.com/law/article/1335/8/Law-and-Practice-relating-to-Wills" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Source</a>)</p>
<p>According to the same source:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Under the Muslim Law, a Will (i.e. Wasiyyat) can be made, either
verbally or in writing. However, as it is a safe practice, where the
subject-matter of the Will is immovable property, it is better to make
it in writing.</p>
<p>Basically, under the Muslim law, a bequest in favour of any heir is
not valid. However, it can be made valid by the consent of other
heirs, and where such consent is to be obtained after the death of the
testator.</p>
<p>Furthermore, under the Muslim Law, one cannot dispose of, by way of a
Will, more than one-third (1/3) of his net estate. Here, the net
estate means that property, which remains after payment or
satisfaction of testators debts owing to third persons and the funeral
expenses of deceased testator. In other words, up to such one-third of
net estate, any Muslim person is free to make a Will. This is a
maximum limit of disposable property through the Will; and it is
called as the bequeathable third. However, if in case, more than this
limit, property is disposed of by way of Will, then such Will is not
altogether void, because it could still be validated by the consent of
all the heirs of such person.</p>
<p>A Muslim woman can also make a Will.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The inheritance laws of India do not appear to make a distinction between a person's parents' ancestral properties and self acquired property of a parent's parents (although some Southern states in the United States do make that distinction for some purposes as a legacy of the plantation farming system that once existed there).</p>
<p>Many common law countries (as well as Poland and Lithuania) used to have a form of real estate ownership called &quot;<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_tail" rel="nofollow noreferrer">fee tail</a>&quot; that was designed to keep ancestral properties in the family, but this has been abolished almost everywhere.</p>
<p>It was abolished in English law in 1925, before India gained independence, so it probably didn't enter into the post-Independence law of India, although I was unable to quickly find a direct statement to that effect. Scotland abolished it in the year 2000, Ireland abolished it in 2009. England and Wales abolished trust terms with the same effect in 1996. Pretty much the only common law jurisdictions where fee tail real property ownership still exists (and then with limitations not present at common law) are the U.S. states of Massachusetts, Maine, Delaware and Rhode Island.</p>
<p>India's laws have their roots in the common law tradition of English law.</p>
<p>Many civil law countries (e.g. continental Europe, Latin American, and much of Asia), for example, in the case of Mexico, limit the extent to which children can be disinherited without good cause. But those countries rarely make a distinction between ancestral inherited property of a person's parents and property acquired by a person's parents during their own lives.</p>

<p>To answer your question, yes, the son <em>can</em> be prevented from acquiring the property.</p>
<p>In Indian law, under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Senior Citizens Act, 2007, any transfer of property by a parent which is conditioned on the provision of maintenance to the parent is void if such condition is not complied with.</p>
<p>Further, <a href="https://indiankanoon.org/doc/73281449/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">courts of record</a> in certain state jurisdictions in India have interpreted the above provision to imply the provision of bare necessities to parents, or of welfare of the transferee's parents, <a href="https://indiankanoon.org/doc/193708272/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">the transfer for such purposes itself being implied by co-habitation.</a></p>
