Married daughter share in mother's property
cherry
(Querist) 27 August 2016
This query is : Resolved
My aunt was married befor 1986, our property is in the name of our grand mother who is not alive right now. As per Andrapradesh 1986 property act, I read that daughter married before 1986 will not have any share in the property. Is that true or any other amendments are there for this where my my aunt can claim share as per property act in Andhra pradesh. Please clarify.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 27 August 2016
Which personal law applies in this case, e.g; Hindu?
Can you post correct title of thew law quoted by you?
This law covers property devolved from mother's side as well?
adv.bharat @ PUNE
(Expert) 27 August 2016
Author need to explain the query raised by expert.
cherry
(Querist) 27 August 2016
Hindu succession andrapradesh act 1986
cherry
(Querist) 28 August 2016
We are from Andhra pradesh
P. Venu
(Expert) 28 August 2016
From the facts stated, the property was personal to your grandmother and your aunt is vested with a share.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 28 August 2016
All the documents need to be referred in reference to local law, discuss with local lawyer.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 28 August 2016
You have posted that;
"Can you post correct title of thew law quoted by you?.....................'Hindu succession andrapradesh act 1986'"
You have not replied to: "This law covers property devolved from mother's side as well?"
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 28 August 2016
You have posted that;
"our property is in the name of our grand mother who is not alive right now"
If the Hindu woman has deceased without leaving a valid WILL, her self acquired/earned/absolute property devolves upon; her husband, sons, daughters.........
Relate with your own query and if daughter of deceased Hindu female (your aunt) has a share then avoid litigation and let her have her share amicably.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 28 August 2016
A Hindu woman or girl will have equal property rights along with other male relatives for any partition made in intestate succession after September 2005, the Supreme Court has ruled.
A bench of justices R. M. Lodha and Jagdish Singh Khehar in a judgment said that under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, the daughters are entitled to equal inheritance rights along with other male siblings, which was not available to them prior to the amendment.
The apex court said the female inheritors would not only have the succession rights but also the same liabilities fastened on the property along with the male members.
“The new Section 6 provides for parity of rights in the coparcenary property among male and female members of a joint Hindu family on and from September 9, 2005. The legislature has now conferred substantive right in favour of the daughters.
“According to the new Section 6, the daughter of a coparcener becomes a coparcener by birth in her own rights and liabilities in the same manner as the son. The declaration in Section 6 that the daughter of the coparcener shall have same rights and liabilities in the coparcenary property as she would have been a son is unambiguous and unequivocal,”Justice Lodha, writing the judgment, said.
The term coparcener refers to the equal inheritance right of a person in a property.
The apex court passed the ruling while upholding the appeal filed by Ganduri Koteshwaramma, daughter of late Chakiri Venkata Swamy, challenging the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s decision not to recognise equal property rights of women along with their male siblings.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 28 August 2016
The author has posted that:
"our property is in the name of our grand mother who is not alive right now."
The property in question is not from male lineage.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 28 August 2016
The Hindu Succession (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1986
Act 13 of 1986
"CHAPTER-II-A
(iv) Nothing in clause (ii) shall ap ly to a
daughter manied prior to or to a partition w g, ch had
been effected before the commencement of the Hindu
Succession (hdhra Pradesh Amendment) Act,1986:
http://www.lawsofindia.org/pdf/andhra_pradesh/1986/1986AP13.pdf
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 28 August 2016
Supreme Court of India
Ganduri Koteshwaramma & Anr vs Chakiri Yanadi & Anr on 12 October, 2011
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1103994/
4. The appellants and the respondents are siblings being daughters and sons of Chakiri Venkata Swamy. The 1 st respondent (plaintiff) filed a suit for partition in the court of Senior Civil Judge,
Ongole impleading his father Chakiri Venkata Swamy (1st defendant), his brother Chakiri Anji Babu (2nd defendant) and his two sisters - the present appellants - as 3rd and 4th defendant respectively. In respect of schedule properties `A', `C' and `D' - coparcenary property - the plaintiff claimed that he, 1st defendant and 2nd defendant have 1/3rd share each. As regards schedule property `B'--as the property belonged to his mother--he claimed that all the parties have 1/5th equal share.
5………………..As regards schedule property `B' the plaintiff was declared to be entitled to 1/5 th share. The controversy in the present appeal does not relate to schedule `B' property and is confined to schedule `A', `C' and `D' properties. The trial court ordered for separate enquiry as regards mesne profits.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 29 August 2016
After coming into force HSA 2005, all local Acts and provisions of Hindu succession have been repealed and thus the provisions of Central act are now in application.
