It is well settled that a Hindu can have interest in ancestral property as well as acquire his separate or self-acquired property. Both properties cannot be merged together and form a separate property like an ancestral property or self-acquired property. Nature of the property cannot be changed, a Hindu has the right to hold both kinds of property at the same time and in a different capacity.
Ancestral property is the property inherited by a person from his father, father’s father or father’s father’s father. That means property inherited by a person from any other relation becomes his separate property. That exactly committed in your case, when the disputed property is devolved upon you from your uncle it is separate property or it can be said that it is your self-acquired property. You can hold or own both properties simultaneously within exclusive nature.
You have an absolute and unfettered right to dispose of property (disputed in the suit) in the manner you like. Your child has no right to claim his share on the basis of wrong belief that it is an ancestral property. Thus property inherited by a person from collaterals such as brother, uncle, etc., cannot be said to be ancestral property and his son cannot claim a share therein as if it were ancestral property.
If you have merged your separate or self-acquired property into the ancestral property, the nature of the property becomes to change. The whole property shall be called or treated as an ancestral property and all the coparceners have accrued right to enjoy it.
Thereafter your child (coparcener) can claim his right in the property on the basis of inheritance. But it is not simply proved by oral evidence, it must be shown that you have thrown your separate property into the common stock with a view to give up your exclusive right thereon. Unless it is not proved, said property cannot be treated as ancestral property.
