Women rights under hindu succession act

JEGADEESAN (Querist) 29 July 2024 This query is : Resolved
Sir
I would like to clarify some doubt regarding Women Rights under Hindu Succession Act .
Actually My Grandfather namely S. Perumal bought some property to the extent of 37.5 cent from each son, out of total 75 cents belongs to a family .
Originally the property was bought by E . Murugan & he has died in 1972 without written any will or settlement & he has leaving behind him , totally 3 daughters & 2 Sons ( Namely 1. Thiraviyam & 2. Sivan and his wife .

Thereafter S .Perumal has got the Sale deed on 26.11.1974 (Vide Doc No 2158/1974) from Thiraviyam to the extent of 37.5 Cents
& another one Sale deed in 1.6.1975 from Sivan to the extent of 37.5 Cents Both of them sold based on oral partition between family members and sold for family purposes.

In between the above Murugan's daughter namely Sornam & Lakshmi (After their marriage )Executed a sale deed in favour of Manikkam on 26.11.1974 (Vide Doc No 2160/1974) to the extent of 30 Cent mentioning that Legal heirs of Murugan and claim 2/5 share of total 75 Cents . ( The same portion of land has been already sold by her brother Thiraviyam & it has been clearly mentioned in the sale deed with exact boundaries)

i.e. They have claimed without considering her mother even she was alive at that time and also oral partition existing between their brothers as equal share of total property between the brothers ( male legal heirs only).

Now I want to challenge the right over the above property against Manikkam Since he has got the land by forgery sale deed on the following grounds
i.e. 1. Once again executed the sale deed even the same land was already sold ,
and
2. sale deed executed without considering oral partition between family members,
and
No right to females while the land was already orally partitioned and also married daughters have no right to claim the property ( Since they have married before 25.3.1989 )
1.Am I correct with the provisions of Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 1989) Act?
2.What will be possibility of winning chances of this case ? Mostly or 50:50?

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Quick Summary

This discussion clarifies women's inheritance rights under the Hindu Succession Act, particularly concerning property left by a father who died intestate. It addresses the validity of oral partitions and whether married daughters can claim a share, even if they received other assets like gold or cash during their marriage. The advice highlights that daughters have equal rights to sons in their father's property, and partitions excluding them are generally considered invalid. It also cautions against relying on irrelevant case law and recommends seeking professional legal consultation for specific situations.

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Expert) 30 July 2024
From your contents it can be understood that you have very properly and correctly misinterpreted the law to your convenience.
Firstly you should be aware that this situation is covered by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and not by the amendment f the act that was enacted in the year 1989 in Tamilnadu.
The daughters are entitled to an equal share in the proeprty at par with their male counterparts out of the property left behind by their father who is reported to have died intestate.
The so called oral partition between the sons alone by excluding the daughters is not legally valid and it can be termed as illegal act to deprive the rights of the daughters whether they are married or unmarried.
Therefore the sons cannot acquire the entire proeprty unto themselves by excluding the daughters and not giving any share in the property.
Now coming the sale of property to Manikam.
Manickam is also one of the buyer who bought the piece of land from the legal heirs of deceased Murugan similar to the purchase of S Perumal, who purchased the proeprty from the sons of deceased Murugan.
Therefore the proposed suit against anyone in this complex situation may not be tenable in law and would result into mere waste of time, money and energy at the end of the day.
Hence you may better think of an alternative to settle the matter in a compromised manner

Sudhir Kumar, Advocate (Expert) 30 July 2024
Very long narrative.

JEGADEESAN (Querist) 02 August 2024
Kalaiselvan Sir thanks for your valuable Advice , Further I would like to inform you that Oral Partition has been done among all the legal heirs of E Murugan. Based on that total extent of 75 Cents has been divided as 37.5 Cents to each son and they had to take care on their sisters marriage and post marriage formalities as existed between their family customs/procedures .
Further Manikkam intentionally bought from the female legal heirs, the same portion of the property (Not piece of the property or UDS) what has been already sold to S .Perumal by Thiraviyam.

My Question is once oral partition is over among the legal heirs, then Whether the co-parcener (2 female legal Heirs ) can claim their share of property which has been bought by their father and the same was also not available for partition and also the property had lost the status or standing of a coparcenary property.
Based on the oral partition male legal heirs were enjoying the property and living there whereas the female had got married and got everything from their brothers as per oral partition i.e. Got Gold, cash instead of land and settled in their Husband's village .
Now can I succeed the case based on the following case law
https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/08/18/partition-may-also-be-effected-under-a-settlement-or-oral-understanding-sc-legal-news/
I am expecting your views or advice . Since You may have handled so many cases like this practically . So your advice may be very helpful.

JEGADEESAN (Querist) 03 August 2024
Kalaiselvan Sir once again thanks for your valuable advice

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Expert) 03 August 2024
Don't mix up your knowledge with incorrect interpretation of law and conclude on a wrong concept.
The daughters has rights in their father's properties if the father was reported to have died intestate. It is not ancestral proeprty to them but it is their father's property.
The sons cannot have oral or any kind of partition among themselves by excluding the daughters from allotting any share to them for whatever reason they my claim.
As per Hindu succession act, 1956, the daughters have equal rights in the properties at par with the sons.
Therefore the claim made by daughters for their legitimate rights in the property belonging to their father is very much legally valid.
Again the citation you referred hereto is pertaining to some other subject and not the subject that you discuss here.
As per you, the brothers have got their sisters married by giving them gold and other articles, but whether is this mentioned as schedule of property in oral partition which was made between the sons?
You better have a personal consultation with any experienced lawyer by booking a consultation and get the issues properly clarified instead of getting more and more confused by not able to understand what is written here.

JEGADEESAN (Querist) 03 August 2024
Ok thanks for your reply

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