Application of limitation act 1963

VIJAY KUMAR (Querist) 09 July 2023 This query is : Resolved
My father left behind the property intstate on 08.02.1985 which is in my sole occupation and am living here since 1954. My mother demised on 03.06.2000 without any will. TILL 2004 my one elder brother (82) and my sisters (74) and 66 did not come forth to claim their share. However with the sudden shoot up of prices they started demanding their share in May 2012 onwards in wring. Now will the limit of 12 years as per Limitation Act 1963 apply In this case for demanding share or to go in for formal litigation? Please guide. Thanks.D

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Quick Summary

This discussion concerns the application of the Limitation Act 1963 to a property dispute. The original poster's father passed away intestate in 1985, leaving the property to be shared among siblings. Siblings are now demanding their share, years after the father's death. The core question is whether the 12-year limitation period for partition suits applies, or if the siblings can still claim their share despite the delay.

kavksatyanarayana (Expert) 09 July 2023
The limitation period for partition suits is 12 years.

VIJAY KUMAR (Querist) 09 July 2023
Thanks for your reply. But from which date the period of 12 years will be reckoned? Thanks.

Advocate Bhartesh goyal (Expert) 10 July 2023
Limitation period starts from the day when demand of partition by metes and bounds denied .

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Expert) 10 July 2023
They can file a suit for partition claiming their rightful share in the property even at this stage.
It is always advisable that at this old age, you all should settle the issues amicably with a mutually agreed conditions for an amicable partition among yourselves.

Dr. J C Vashista (Expert) 11 July 2023
Limitation for institution of suit for partition do not apply in your case.
Your siblings have equal right / share in the intestate property inherited by all of you.

VIJAY KUMAR (Querist) 11 July 2023
6. Devolution of interest in coparcenary property. — (1) On and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, in a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener shall, —
(a) by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son;
(b) have the same rights in the coparcenaries property as she would have had if she had been a son;
but
(c) be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenaries property as that of a son,

13. The amendment uses the word liability. This raises the question whether this word ‘LIABILITY’ includes duties and responsibilities also and I feel it should; otherwise it falls short of the basic purpose, intent and spirit of the part (c). As I feel that the liability differs from the duties and responsibilities. The question gathers strength because very often the duties and responsibilities attached or linked with the properties are more vital and important than liability. If the liability does not include duties and responsibility than this word ‘liability’ carries a very narrow and weak meaning as a balancing factor purported to have been included in the amendment; and it perhaps defeats the very purpose of maintaining a balance. The liability I feel, refers to the financial element of the matter, whereas the duties and responsibilities may refer to every type of care with sincerity, respect and dedication. In property matters the situations differ from case to case and at times may demand every and in some cases special care of the old and dependent parents. If the liability, duties and responsibility devolves upon a one single legal heir of the property and all other legal heirs are completely free from the same and enjoying their life in their own way.
In such a case What would the position of their legal rights (other legal heirs) with respect to the ancestral property. As in such cases they do not fulfill the conditions laid down in part (C) stated above.
Thanks.

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Expert) 08 August 2023
You may feel that your interpretation about the liability mentioned in the amended act is proper but it is just your perception and not the law you have misunderstood.
Here the liabilities denote a share in the debt repayment by the coparceners if they are availing the coparcenary rights in the property.
In fact you have deviated too far from the main topic in the name of interpretation of the law.

Previous

Next

You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .

Click here to login now

Similar Resolved Queries :

Ask Query
Unanswered Queries