Hindu succession act 2005

Querist : Anonymous (Querist) 31 August 2011 This query is : Resolved
ALL RESPECTED MEMBERS OF THIS SOCIETY I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THE FOLLOWING PROBLEM PLZ SUGGEST ME YOUR BEST OPINION.

A was married in the year in 1980. After giving birth of two daughters namely B & C his wife had died. A remarried with consent of his other family members and his second wife gave birth 3 daughters and all are minors till date. Marriage of B and C were arranged by her father. After marriage and before marriage both daughters are happy with their parents. After that B`s husband obtain fraudly signature of his wife`s father on blank paper because his father in law is very simple and uneducated and little-bit mental disturb. when B`s father came BACK his home he told the whole story to his brothers. he moved a application to S.P.(police) regarding the said incident.

after passing two days he executed a releases deed of his ancestral property in favor of his second wife for the wale-fare of his minor daughters and C has no objection regarding the said deed.

but when B came to know that her father executed a release deed in favor of her step-mother she challanged the said releases deed for the share 1/7 share.

now my question is that can is B entitled to get 1/7 share in ancestral property because she is not a coparcener now and her marrige also done much prior 2005 amendment in Hindu Succession Act 2005.

Or if she is not entitled plz tell me case law.
THANKU

Follow Query

Report Abuse

R.Ramachandran (Expert) 01 September 2011
Where is the property located?
When (exact date) did the father execute the release deed?

Raj Kumar Makkad (Expert) 01 September 2011
B is entitled to inherit 1/7 share in the ancestral property as she is still coparcener and her share cannot be snatched from her merely because she was married much prior to HSA 2005. The year of marriage is not relevant. The basic thing is she inherits the share since her birth which is required to be mutated in her name after death of her father.

prabhakar singh (Expert) 01 September 2011
if her rights are curtailed by a registered instrument prior to 20/12/2004 only then she would be deprived other wise after enforcement of amending HSA2005 she is a coparcenary in ancestral properties in hands of her father.

girish shringi (Expert) 01 September 2011
I do agree with experts.

Querist : Anonymous (Querist) 01 September 2011
RES/SIR I APPRECIATE VALUABLE SUGGESTION AND HEARLTY THANKFULNESS TO ALL OF YOU

BUT NOW THE QUESTION IS THAT A IS SON LESS HE HAVE ONLY DAUGHTERS HIS ANCESTRAL PROPERTY DEEMED TO SELF ACQUIRED PROPERTY ACCORDING TO HINDU SUCCESSION ACT AND MORE OVER HE IS MENTAL DISTURB PERSON AND AS I DEFINE ABOVE THE SITUATION THAT B`s HUSBAND GOT SIGNATURE OF A FRAUDULENTLY ON BLANK PAPER. CAN HE IS NOT EXECUTE RELEASE DEED FOR WALE-FAIR OF HIS 3 UNMARRIED DAUGHTERS WHICH ARE MINOR AND A IS NOW MORE THAN 70 YEARS OLD.

Querist : Anonymous (Querist) 01 September 2011
PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN HARYANA IN SONEPAT

prabhakar singh (Expert) 02 September 2011
A release deed requires registration so only plain paper signature would not be helpful,in any case the very act is wrong and police must be informed of that.

There is misconception running in your mind,as per law of 2005 daughters also have rights like sons and are treated at par and rule of survivor-ship is extended to benefit them equally as id rgey were son.

As you say he is mentally ill ,one should proceed for appoint of guardian to look after his affairs.

R.Ramachandran (Expert) 02 September 2011
Still you have not answered as to when (exact date) did he execute the release deed?

Querist : Anonymous (Querist) 02 September 2011
sorry R.Ramachandran sir exact date is 20th November 2007

R.Ramachandran (Expert) 02 September 2011
It only means that till that date (i.e. 20.11.2007) he did not do anything with the property (which is "ancestral" according to you). The property remained unpartitioned. By that time, the HSA 2005 Amendment Act, giving coparcenary rights to daughters had already come into place. Therefore, the rights of the daughters for share in the coparcenary property (ancestral property) cannot be denied. At best, the father could have given away only his share in the ancestral property and not the whole property.

girish shringi (Expert) 04 September 2011
I do agree with Mr. Ramchandran.

Hindu succession act 2005

Similar Resolved Queries :

Download LCI APP

Our Network Sites