NO SHARE FOR WOMAN - PARTITION

Querist : Anonymous (Querist) 29 August 2010 This query is : Resolved
Is there any judgement to say " NO SHARE OF ANCESTRAL PROPERTY FOR WOMAN, WHO MARRIED BEFORE 1989"?

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Chanchal Nag Chowdhury (Expert) 29 August 2010
Not known.

s.subramanian (Expert) 29 August 2010
That is with regard to the state amendment brought by the Tamilnadu State to the Hindu Succession Act by the Hindu Succession (Amendment)Act,1990. By the said amendment a limited right was sought to be conferred on the female members of the joint hindu family by making those female members who remained unmarried on and who got married after 25 March,1989 as full fledged co-parceners of the Hindu co parcenary. Obviously the query has been raised from Tamilnadu.

s.subramanian (Expert) 29 August 2010
I would like to add that the said amendment has been given a go by by the subsequent amendment brought by the Parliament to the Hindu Succession (Amendment )Act,2005 by which Sec.6 of the Hindu Succession Act,1956 has been amended by the Parliament to confer right of co--parcenary on all the female heirs after 24.12-2004.Now as on date,all the female heirs are the co-parceners in the hindu co parcenary.

Rajeev kulshreshtha (Expert) 29 August 2010
After the amendment all females have equal share in ancestor property.

Deekshitulu.V.S.R (Expert) 29 August 2010
according to the latest amendment brought in 2005, all female hindus are entitled to a share in the ancestral property as a son whether they are married before 1989 or later. The only restriction is that there shall not be a registered partition as at 20-12-2004. This is well said in the amendment.

Guest (Expert) 29 August 2010
EVEN FEMALE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY ARE ENTITLED FOR SHARE IN JOINT PROPERTY OF THE FAMILY.IT IS AS PER LATEST AMMENDMENT.THOUGH THE INTENTION IS GOOD STILL THE CONCERNED BROTHERS ARE RELUCTANT TO GIVE SHARE TO SISTERS IN JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY AND EVEN SISTERS ARE RELUCTANT TO ASK FOR SHARE IN JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY.
THERE SHOULD BE STRICT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ACT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
GOOD LUCK.

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