Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ABanks won’t reverse this. Your family member himself transferred the money. The bank does not have any liability unless UPI transfer was disabled and they still allowed it. Or, if your family had specific insurance to protect this kind of fraud.
The only hope is if cyber police can catch the culprit and recover the money, but the chances of the former are low and the latter even lower.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but these are the facts. I had a family member who was scammed too.
AClass 1 heirs of Hindu male include wife, children and mother. So , all three of you will have an equal share.Some of the heirs can relinquish their share in the property in favour of other heirs.
AAren’t even ad valorem fees subject to a ceiling in most states ? For example , if it is a 10K crore property, will the party have to deposit 100s of crores ?AMaybe the other guy is convinced the OP was at fault and he doesn’t want to lose his No Claim Bonus when he is convinced it was the other person’s fault.AThe OP did not stop after the accident. The opposite party can put criminal sections on the OP, including hit and run. That will have to be faced by OP, not the insurance company.AGreat explanation, but legal fees have to be incurred by both parties, not just one.The best option is to have some sort of settlement after verifying the claim of heirship.
ASorry, it is not clear. If there was only one lane, how could your car have been to the left of the other car ? Generally in these kinds of accidents, the person who is on the left will be considered responsible because there would be less of a blind spot on the driver side than the passenger side and also because the traffic on the left should be moving slower.AUnless I misunderstood, the other guy was in the right lane and your driver was in the left/centre It seems to me your driver turned right without checking the ORVM. He might have signalled but that doesn’t entitle him to change lanes without checking whether there was traffic behind.Or did I misunderstand ?
AThe situation can change with time. In my opinion, since the relative has asked OP’s family to vacate and they have refused, they are currently in adverse possession. The question is what the starting date of the adverse possession is. In my opinion, it is the date on which the heir demanded the property back. If he does not file a lawsuit to evict the OP’s family or take other concrete action to recover the property within the next 12 years, then the OP does have a strong case. The case that adverse possession started the day the old lady died is much weaker.AThe court will decide whether it applies or not. There is a prima facie case because the heir made no claim on the property for decades, but maybe the OP will not be able to prove all the other elements. I don’t know the actual facts or the evidence that will be presented, but , as I already told you , the case will be decided under the Limitation Act. The Constitution allows him to seek any legal remedy he is entitled to. It doesn’t necessarily mean he will get what he wants, but it is entirely up to him if he wants to try.
