Who seems to be unreasonable and greedy? Looking for unbiased opinions and perspectives.

@SequinTheDay is it known what the actual beneficial value of this land is? Does it produce a yield income from rents or sale of crops grown by tenant farmers? If it were sold, what would the actual profit be if you subtract the amount of time and money you would have to spend to make it happen vs the amount recieved from the sale? Because if the real answers to these are "nothing at all" then the "ownership" being passed down through the generations is purely about honor and favouritism with no actual material consequences to anyone's wellbeing.

Is everyone apart from DS1 in India?

Is the will in India or England?

@SequinTheDay the land is in India? Realistically, will your DH keep it or sell it?
Have the other brothers also got pockets of land as well?

The younger three brothers sound awful.

Eldest son should stand his ground!

It sounds like decades later so much has changed - the father and son 1 reconciled, the family attitudes to love marriages, changed, divorces of, I assume, arranged marriages have happened.

So whether the eldest said he didn't want the land seems irrelevant in so many ways.

The whole thing sounds so toxic - it's way beyond greedy.

Okay.
Well, a quarter each, as we've all said.
Your kids get your husband's share, until they're old enough/fit enough/broke enough or wise enough to do the admin legwork like their (presumably older) cousins.
And hoping BIL4's wife copes with MIL as, toxic or not, it sounds like pass-the-parcel and all that land is actually morally/rightly hers in the first place, unless separated from her husband.
If she wanted eldest to have it because he will actually get the money for it and would have done right by her(?) then I do not blame her for calling you/wanting them to do right by her.
A risk though if eldest/DS3 has already thrown her out and LC.
Patriarchy sucks.

Then I don't get it.
Sorry for being so obtuse.
You're all arguing over the ownership of land and keeping it within your own families when it actually sounds like a mill stone/albatross around your neck...if it is impossible to sell/so much hassle to sell.
So why would your children want or need it?
They are based and born here. Highly unlikely then, they'll move there or have the time to do the admin/pain of paperwork that goes with this.
If eldest brother had inherited all of it, would his children actually benefit?
Or is this just all a pissing contest?!

So we are talking land that nobody actually uses and only has value if you were to move there?
Who actually lives in India from all the brothers?
How do you stop people stealing it/building on it/squatting, if noone is there?
How much is it actually worth in pounds?
And what about your MIL?!!!!!!

Funny how they don’t ‘estrange’ themselves from the cash.

As far as I understand it you cannot renounce an inheritance in advance, it has to be after the death.

Blimey OP, can you get to 11.38am please?!! P4
I have questions....

So basically living his life like a normal member of society? He was/is an adult, why do his parents have any right to tell him what to do? I find it both fascinating and alarming that anyone would consider his behaviour rebellious.

Is the land in the UK or in India?
Your MIL now lives with her fourth son and his new wife?
Culturally, is new wife expected to be her carer?
What date was FIL's will written, how long ago?
Who were they living with when he was alive?
Who took care of him?
Why is there no provision for his wife? Who was expected to take care of her?
What are the long term plans for her?

I would be selling the land and, depending on how old your children are, passing the money to them or putting it into a trust.
Depending on how much £ there is, I would be potentially giving half (or your own share) to BIL4 (or his new wife) for the ongoing upkeep of your MIL which, cultural or not, is a massive undertaking.
If the land and extended family are all in the UK then I am amazed your MIL has not contested the will tbf. It should have all gone to her if a dependent. If she has to go into care, will it not be seen as deprivation of assets just passing down the whole inheritance to the next generation?

No more greedy that the rest of his brothers who want him to give it up so they can have it. Personally I think that everyone who circles and moithers about the contents of a will is coming at it from a position of greed, because its always about getting their mitts on someone else's cash that they've not earned themselves. In this case the deceased was clear, so there isn't anything to fight about.

What someone said 40 years ago, maybe before they had children etc is not always relevant today.

The dad wanted it split 4 ways and also had 40 years to think about it and change things if he wanted to.

Maybe having children himself the 1st son sees things differently and wants to pass it on to his children so he’s doing so. Makes sense. Maybe the dad wanted this too which is why he left the 25%!