What to do give the below situation?

Situation : Respected members, Requesting your valuable suggestion here, based on which I will proceed with contacting a lawyer. My father has a brother and four sisters who were all married before 1990. My grandfather and my grandmother passed away in 1994 without leaving a deed or will. The undivided property is a mix of ancestral and self acquired property. Recently there are developments to partition the property and all sisters are claiming equal share. I have been reading articles relation to Hindu succession amendment act 2005 and the recent case of Prakash v phulavati on 16thoctober 2015 which mentions that the father should be alive during amendment. I wanted to understand if my aunts have equal share as my father and father's brother. Please note that I am No way against women equality. My father and his brother spent a fortune maintaining the property from encroachments for the past 25 years while the sister's didn't even cared a dime and now they look like loosers after all these years
Related Topics : Property Law
Lawyers answer this question

Advocate Justice Kishan Dutt Kalaskar

Bangalore , Bangalore 
For More Details Contact On +91 7769012300.
A:

The following information confirms your opinion that your aunt's not eligible for share in the property belonging to your father and also ancestral property.

Supreme Court sets 2005 cut-off on women right to ancestral property

In a ruling that will restrict the right of women seeking equal share in ancestral property, the Supreme Court has said that the 2005 amendment in Hindu law will not give property rights to a daughter if the father died before the amendment came into force.

The court held that the amended provisions of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, could not have retrospective effect despite it being a social legislation. The court said the father would have had to be alive on September 9, 2005, if the daughter were to become a co-sharer with her male siblings.

The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, originally did not give daughters inheritance rights in ancestral property. They could only ask for a right to sustenance from a joint Hindu family. But this disparity was removed by an amendment to the Act on September 9, 2005.

The apex court judgment has now added another disqualification for women regarding their right of inheritance. Until now, they could not ask for a share if the property had been alienated or partitioned before December 20, 2004, the date the Bill was introduced. This judgment makes it imperative for the father to have been alive when the amendment came into force.

Settling the law in the wake of a clutch of appeals arising out of high court judgments, a bench of Justices Anil R Dave and Adarsh K Goel recently held that the date of a daughter becoming coparcener (having equal right in an ancestral property) is “on and from the commencement of the Act”.

The bench overruled the view taken by some high courts that the amendment being a gender legislation that aimed at according equal rights to the daughter in ancestral property by removing discrimination, should be applied retrospectively.

Interpreting statutory provisions, the top court shot down the argument that a daughter acquires right by birth, and even if her father had died prior to the amendment, the shares of the parties were required to be redefined.

“The text of the amendment itself clearly provides that the right conferred on a ‘daughter of a coparcener’ is ‘on and from the commencement’ of the amendment Act. In view of plain language of the statute, there is no scope for a different interpretation than the one suggested by the text,” it said.

Further, there is neither any express provision for giving retrospective effect to the amended provision nor necessary intent, noted the court, adding “even a social legislation cannot be given retrospective effect unless so provided for or so intended by the legislature”.
About applicability of the amendment to the daughters born before it was brought, the bench held that the new law would apply irrespective of the date of birth.

“All that is required is that the daughter should be alive and her father should also be alive on the date of the amendment,” it said.

123 user found this answer helpful

Advocate Priyanka Chopade

Nagpur, Nagpur
For More Details Contact On +91 7769012300.
A:

As per The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, could not have retrospective effect despite it being a social legislation. The court said the father would have had to be alive on September 9, 2005, if the daughter were to become a co-sharer with her male siblings.

Supreme Court sets 2005 cut-off on women right to ancestral property

In a ruling that will restrict the right of women seeking equal share in ancestral property, the Supreme Court has said that the 2005 amendment in Hindu law will not give property rights to a daughter if the father died before the amendment came into force.

127 user found this answer helpful

Disclaimer : This answer is based on information given by you hence, It is just opinion of Lawyer. For specific answer you have to give details and facts and choose the Lawyer of your choice.

Lawyers: To answer this question, please Sign In to your account or wait for admin approval.

Most Viewed Lawyers