https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308846 Property claimed as ancestral was not proved to be so because the suit property stood purchased in the recorded owner's name under a 1945 sale deed, and later compensation evidence did not explain that purchase; the gift deed by the self-acquired owner was therefore not invalidated on that ground. The challenge to the gift deed was held time-barred under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as knowledge existed by 13.11.1997 and the suit was filed in 2003; the subsequent sale deed could not be impeached because valid title had passed under the gift. An unregistered family settlement that itself effected partition of immovable property was inadmissible and could not support claims for partition or possession. en-us Fri, 18 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Jul 2023 16:18:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308846 Property claimed as ancestral was not proved to be so because the suit property stood purchased in the recorded owner's name under a 1945 sale deed, and later compensation evidence did not explain that purchase; the gift deed by the self-acquired owner was therefore not invalidated on that ground. The challenge to the gift deed was held time-barred under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as knowledge existed by 13.11.1997 and the suit was filed in 2003; the subsequent sale deed could not be impeached because valid title had passed under the gift. An unregistered family settlement that itself effected partition of immovable property was inadmissible and could not support claims for partition or possession. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 18 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308846