• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Inheritance - boys vs girls

Status
Not open for further replies.
Will you then settle for the joint family system! At least the property was preserved and not split. The adventurer who ventures out and lives elsewhere has a right to come and join the crowd, but cannot demand his share and sell.

Recently, three of a family of four brothers sold their share of the huge ancestral house to a developer; one refused to sell and vacate. The builder who threatened violence on the occupant was severely admonished and fined by the court. His project did not progress; eventually after 4 years, he paid the single brother the sum of what he paid for the three. He finally gave in to greed(?!) and hostile environment (construction noise and dust and inconvenience).

"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.

However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families, that he is considered as the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters."

Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice

Yes! we are agreeing on the point that irrespective of the man's feelings and choices, he is being chases as a prospective husband by all the young girls guided by their mothers.

I know a man who demanded his share of property long back (40 years or so). The estimated value of the sprawling house was divided by the number of children and given to him. He took the money and disappeared.

Now that the value of the property have become several hundred times enhanced, he wants the new value divided by the number of children and given to him once again.

Is he right or wrong???

Prodigal son with a purpose!!!
 
Will you then settle for the joint family system! At least the property was preserved and not split. The adventurer who ventures out and lives elsewhere has a right to come and join the crowd, but cannot demand his share and sell.

This arrangement has also a downside as seen in case of some gujarathi families where hindu undivided family is still in existence.

1. When the adventurer starts a new business (the seed capital being provided by the HUF) and it flourishes, the other brothers are not compensated adequately by the adventurer They are given some token amount as notional interest on the seed capital loaned out to him from the HUF.

2. When the adventurer unfortunately fails in his new business and has accumulated debts etc. which need to be paid out, the remaining brothers crowd him out of the HUF property by buying out his share at the minimum level possible.

3. When the adventurer is not so successful but not a failure either and when he seeks to join back the family again, the other members and their extended families sneer and mock at him and his family.
 
Last edited:
WHEN PARENTS GIVE THEIR MONEY TOO EARLY . . . ( Phil. Star Article by: Letty Jacinto-Lopez )

At their 54th anniversary, my friends made a decision to distribute their combined assets among their living heirs. Their rationale, Para walang gulo (To avoid trouble). They added one proviso: While still alive, income from these properties will be used to maintain our present lifestyle inclusive of medical expenses, extravagant trips and unlimited shopping.

That's easy, replied the heirs. The income was substantial to indulge the old folks with a bonus that the heirs can use in any manner they wanted.

The first year passed without a hitch, but soon the problem surfaced. Each child used all kinds of tactics to keep the money from his parents. It reached a point where the poor retirees had to beg for sustenance, robbing them of the dignity they worked hard to uphold.

What went wrong?

Bad decision, said a cautious friend who warned the couple of this scenario. Children are so unreliable when it comes to inherited money. Money received, which was not expected and not a direct result of something they worked for, is not given the same value as money earned with their own sweat and tears. They lose their sense of propriety; gratitude is tainted by greed and decency gone. This is compounded by in-laws who can tilt or convince their respective spouses to throw out good sense and filial affection like soiled rugs, Honey, they're going to die anyway, so why waste good money on them?

To avoid falling into this vulnerable, pitiful state, keep these 9 tips in mind:

1. Do not retire. If you're over-aged, retire and get all the benefits but find another income-generating job or open a business that will keep you active physically and mentally. Travel and bond with true friends, play a sport, learn a new hobby and volunteer in your community or parish. Don't loaf around. Your spouse will hate you because you've become a sloppy, listless bum with nothing good to say about the household and things that you never bothered about before. Solve crossword puzzles, play Scrabble, write your memoirs, and above all, read ...this will keep you alert and keep Alzheimer's at bay.

2. Live in your own place to enjoy independence, privacy and a solo life. If you move in with your children, your rank or degree of importance is reduced to that of a bed spacer who has no place of honor or, worse, like crumbling furniture merely displayed with no added value. Might you kowtow to conform to their own rules that are not kind, considerate or mindful of you? If you witness your children engaged in a war of will and wits with your grandchildren, whom will you side with? Will they even appreciate your arbitration? Remind your children that silence is not a sign of weakness; you are merely processing data that is taking longer to complete.

3. Hold on to your nest egg, bank deposits and assets. If you want to help your children, do give, but not to the extent that you wipe out your life's earnings, singing heroically not a shirt on my back nor a penny to my name. Staying solvent and in the black is a good hedge against all kinds of tempests. You will sleep better, you will not be afraid to express your opinion and you will be confident about yourself.

4. Don't believe your children's promise to care for you when you grow old. Priorities change. Many children are not guilt-ridden or filled with a sense of moral obligation when the wife and offspring take top billing in their lives. There are still children who would consider it a privilege to show compassion, genuine love and deep concern for their parents but be warned that not all children think alike.

5. Expand your circle of friends to include young ones who will definitely outlive your old BFFs. Keep up with new inventions, trends, music and lifestyle including all the scams and schemes you should guard against. Remember that when you mix with the young, you also open a fresh avenue to channel your thoughts, experiences and values through so that the lessons you learned are not lost, forgotten or buried with you.

6. Be well groomed and smelling fresh of spring water all the time. There's nothing more depressing than seeing people exhale when you walk by because you reek of baul (camphor chest) or lupa (dirt). Old age or bust, don't look and smell like a corpse when you're not one yet.

7. Do not meddle in the life of your children. If they ask for your counsel, give it, but be ready to accept that they may not take it. Their situations in life cannot be compared to the situations that you experienced in your life. The playing field has changed and they need to develop their own set of survival skills. If you raised them to be street smart, they can handle themselves in tough situations and be able to read people. Champion and encourage their dreams and desires but on their own terms.

8. Do not use old age as your shield and justification for turning grumpy. There's nothing more annoying than an arrogant, old fool. Welcome each day as another chance to be kind and forgiving, to yourself and to others.

9. Listen to what others may say. Do not throw your weight around just because you are a septuagenarian or a nonagenarian. You are not a depository of knowledge. Even if the roles have been reversed, make growing old a fun-filled, pleasant experience for you and your family.



 
One way out is to take a reverse mortgage on the house. The couple will get a pre-decided monthly income during their lifetime. The property will be taken over by the bank and money left after covering expenses post sale will be given to the wards. Many banks were vigorously promoting this scheme a few years ago.
 
Well, the old english system has its merits. The estate and the title went to the eldest son. Younger siblings have to live on allowances doled out. The daughters have to snare (sometime with scheming mother's support) eligible bachelors or widowers with title and endowments. Life was simple then!
What merit?
Totally unfair, illegal and good riddance.
Just because it is old it does not have to be good, old garbage stinks more.
 
Well, the old english system has its merits. The estate and the title went to the eldest son. Younger siblings have to live on allowances doled out. The daughters have to snare (sometime with scheming mother's support) eligible bachelors or widowers with title and endowments. Life was simple then!

I presume you are talking of primogeniture, the old English way of preserving country estates. By virtue of birth, the eldest son, even if he is second or third born after daughters, got everything.

His brothers got nothing. In many cases, they prayed or plotted the brother’s death.

Again if the oldest brother got only daughters, then the property came to the younger brother.

It was considered unfair even in England, and they have equal rights for genders. Now. by law.
 
Namaste kunjuppuji

I sincerely believe that when parents are still alive then the decision of parents should final&respected in division of properties amoung their children irrespective of legal/moral definitions of their own children or outsiders(society ? law?).
Ex: Parents may(I guess always)favours (both moral-support as well as monetary-support) more a child that is invalid-handicapped-spoilt than other children

And when parents are no more alive then the division of properties should be left to the children (grand children ?).
how can outsiders (society ? law ?) decide how properties should be divided among children (grand children ?) since the history of favours (both moral-support as well as monetary-support) done by parents is missing
Also, even if such historical information is available then how well can outsiders (society ? law ?) decide the division of properties ? it will be like the scenario in iRobot where the Robot (society ? law ? in our case) decides to save the driver (hero) leaving the child in car since the chances of saving the child as calculated by the Robot (society ? law ? in our case) is minimal.

These are my immature views and can change with time&experience, thanks for reading !!!

Thanks
Jai SiyaRaam
 
First of all by law ancestral property can not be willed away.
Parents are human too, and sometimes they have biases. Some time the biases are justified. If it is their money they have every right to choose, who should get what portion. It is also possible that they may leave bulk of their estate to Charity, as they may not find any worthy family members (it does not happen in India).

The greedy children will crib at anything they got or did not get, that is the nature of the world.

If anybody passed away without a valid will, then there are laws which determine the distribution.
 
....... It is also possible that they may leave bulk of their estate to Charity, as they may not find any worthy family members (it does not happen in India)..........
Dear Prasad Sir,

It happens in India when all the family members are good at heart! I know a family in which all the sons are affluent and their

father's land, located at the center of a city, was donated to an organization to build a 'senior citizen home for the less fortunate'.

The father wrote his will and the land was given to that organization as per his will. The 'Home' is functioning now! :thumb:
 
Ref # 53 by Dr. Renu

My guruji told us ( his disciples) this story.

A very rich man gave away all his belongings to his sons - since the sons promised to take good care of him.

Easy come ... easy go!

They spent the money lavishly and the old man could do nothing about it.

They practically squandered all his money very soon.

When he became older (and wiser) he was treated like dirt

since he had nothing to offer them anymore.

The old man wept to his guruji one day relating the way he was treated.

Guruji gave him a heavy box kept locked and an idea.

When the sons saw the heavy box always kept locked they asked about it.

The old man said that it was his life's savings kept safe all these years.

It will be passed on to the son who took the best care of him!

The whole scene changed immediately.

He was treated like a royal king. His wish was his command. The old man

was given due respect as long as he lived.

When he died the sons could not wait to break open the box filled with

treasure.

Imagine their feelings when all they found in it were bricks and a slip of

paper saying 'Thank you dear children for taking good care of me!"

They might have cursed and scolded him for playing this 'dirty trick'

but he was so far away from them that he would not be affected by them

any more.
 
I presume you are talking of primogeniture, the old English way of preserving country estates. By virtue of birth, the eldest son, even if he is second or third born after daughters, got everything.

His brothers got nothing. In many cases, they prayed or plotted the brother’s death.

Again if the oldest brother got only daughters, then the property came to the younger brother.

It was considered unfair even in England, and they have equal rights for genders. Now. by law.

It would have been very difficult for the younger sons to live on a fixed constant income during the days of spiraling prices.

When all the girls wanted to marry only a person with a title, an estate and an endowment, in all likelihood only the eldest son would have got married since the others had NOTHING worthy enough to attract eligible girls.
 
It would have been very difficult for the younger sons to live on a fixed constant income during the days of spiraling prices.

When all the girls wanted to marry only a person with a title, an estate and an endowment, in all likelihood only the eldest son would have got married since the others had NOTHING worthy enough to attract eligible girls.

visa,

under primogeniture, barring the eldest who get everything, the other sons got NOTHING. not even a penny allowance.

the idea was ofcourse, to preerve the estates from splitting up, among other things (england has a loooong recorded history, and in most cases,british law, is evolved, and not made overnight).

which is why, the general belief, is that the younger sons, joined the army, went to the colonies,and built up the British Empire. and made lots of money in the colonies, only to face the jealousy and envy of their family (read older brother who was now part of established ruling class).

folks like warren hasting or robert clive, had a tough time when they went back. clive committed suicide. hastings lost all his indian money through litigation.
 
Namaste kunjuppuji

I sincerely believe that when parents are still alive then the decision of parents should final&respected in division of properties amoung their children irrespective of legal/moral definitions of their own children or outsiders(society ? law?).
Ex: Parents may(I guess always)favours (both moral-support as well as monetary-support) more a child that is invalid-handicapped-spoilt than other children

And when parents are no more alive then the division of properties should be left to the children (grand children ?).
how can outsiders (society ? law ?) decide how properties should be divided among children (grand children ?) since the history of favours (both moral-support as well as monetary-support) done by parents is missing
Also, even if such historical information is available then how well can outsiders (society ? law ?) decide the division of properties ? it will be like the scenario in iRobot where the Robot (society ? law ? in our case) decides to save the driver (hero) leaving the child in car since the chances of saving the child as calculated by the Robot (society ? law ? in our case) is minimal.

These are my immature views and can change with time&experience, thanks for reading !!!

Thanks
Jai SiyaRaam

hi siyaraam,

thank you for your note.

i would like to reiterate that i am talking of today times. today, when most of us tambrams, are educated, +2 and up, and most of us, university. our daughters are treated the same as sons. in many cases there are only daughters. or one daughter one son.

except when it comes to inheritance. we favour the son.

now a days, with lopsided land values, the inheritance runs to crores. if the son has a conscience, and some sense of fairness, i think, he should share it if not equally, atleast after taking for expenses/worries for taking care of parents and such like.

to give one girl child 20 lakhs, and one son 2 crores, is not fair or decent. i am talking of normal families with no outstanding rancour or fights otherwise.

one cannot hope the daughter or her children, to have any warm feelings for the son and his children. it is just not money. if you feel you have family values, just do not grab the money. think of other things too.

that is all i am saying. ok?

let us not talk ancient stuff. we have dropped enough of ancient stuff when it suits us.
 
Is sister not getting share of her husband s ancestral property?
Moot point in todays world are we are more obsessed with money than relationships?
When everything boils down to money or equality than relationships suffer.
More on western thought - why dont we also emulate charity by giving away our wealth for general welfare of mankind when children are doing well instead of accumulating thru generations.
 
Namaste kunjuppuji

...i would like to reiterate that i am talking of today times...
let us not talk ancient stuff. we have dropped enough of ancient stuff when it suits us.

I am sorry, I was not referring to old times (culture or law), by "how can outsiders (society ? law ?) decide how properties should be divided among children (grand children ?) since the history of favours (both moral-support as well as monetary-support) done by parents is missing" I mean for a given case (either in old times or modern times) the actions (favours done to kids) by parents is missing so it will be difficult (unwise ?) on the part of children as well as society or law to pass judgement on the fairness of parents.

...to give one girl child 20 lakhs, and one son 2 crores, is not fair or decent...one cannot hope the daughter or her children, to have any warm feelings for the son and his children...

Also, I am not talking about gender of the kids, for parents kids are kids. I was not addressing the above specific scenario. For me the above scenario is very much biased towards girl child hence undermines the morality (legality ?) part and highlights division of property in terms amount which is very much in favour of the girl child so it is redundant to talk about the gender of the child (in this case being girl child). fairness (unfairness ?) is irrespective of gender of the child.

I agree with your views, thanks for taking time read & respond to my confusion.

I am an ardent reader of your posts.

Thanks,
Jai SiyaRaam
 
visa,

under primogeniture, barring the eldest who get everything, the other sons got NOTHING. not even a penny allowance.

the idea was ofcourse, to preerve the estates from splitting up, among other things (england has a loooong recorded history, and in most cases,british law, is evolved, and not made overnight).

which is why, the general belief, is that the younger sons, joined the army, went to the colonies,and built up the British Empire. and made lots of money in the colonies, only to face the jealousy and envy of their family (read older brother who was now part of established ruling class).

folks like warren hasting or robert clive, had a tough time when they went back. clive committed suicide. hastings lost all his indian money through litigation.

Dear Mr. Kunjuppu!
How sad! The younger brothers neither get anything from the family
nor are allowed to make their own fortune and live happily ever after.
Too cruel isn't it.
We all read about Robert Clive but most of us do not now about his sad end!
 
How does primogeniture work if the said landed gentry has only daughters and no sons? One can get carried away with the Bronte sisters, Jane Austen and such literature which does portray a romanticised view of the old times!
 
How does primogeniture work if the said landed gentry has only daughters and no sons? One can get carried away with the Bronte sisters, Jane Austen and such literature which does portray a romanticised view of the old times!

it went to the nearest male relative.

which is why daughters many a times were bypassed. and nephews got the loot :)
 
hi
just curious....under primogeniture,....how victoria/elizabeth became the queen of england....even i had that ..the britishers

put the law that if there is no male in the royal family...then the kingdom goes to british....i heard abt travancore/

jhansi ki rani stories....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top