Partition right of a female from the ancestral properties while her father alive
R.Manivasagan
(Querist) 24 July 2013
This query is : Resolved
Dear Seniors and Legends,
I would like to get the latest position of law regarding the right of partition by a daughter (married before 1989) from her father or brothers, in the ancestral properties in the hands of her father who got it in the family partition.
1.Whether the father should be alive as on the date of filing the suit? or
2. Is it not a matter whether the father is alive or not while asking partition?
The section 6 and 8 of the Hindu Succession Act confuses me lot.
the Definition for the "Coparcenery property", "Hindu Undivided property" and the "Joint family property" please.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 24 July 2013
A property that belonged to grandfather or his father and came in hand of a father by succession is called coparcenary property in which previously only grandsons had right to share by birth,but by amendment in law the same right has been conferred now on granddaughters also.
A female co-sharer in past did not have right to ask for partition of dwelling in which members of Joint hindu family resided due to bar of section 23 HSA but the same is no more in existence due to it's repeal (w.e.f. 9-9-2005) .
Hence now daughter can file for partition of her share in coparcenary property against her father as can a son do.
R.Manivasagan
(Querist) 25 July 2013
sir, whether her father should alive or not? please
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 25 July 2013
If Father is dead then suit by her daughter(s) can be filed against other coparceners.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 25 July 2013
To clear your other doubts i would like to mention that
This has been an accepted proposition from the beginning, that every Hindu Family is presumed to be a joint family. (
Jagannath
v.
Lokanath
,
AIR 1981 Ori. 52
The presumption is that the members of a Hindu Family are living in a state of jointness, unless contrary is proved.
The normal state of every Hindu Family is that it is joint family, presumably joint in Food,Worship and Estate.
I would like to advise you to go with AIR 1976 SC 109 for understanding a HUF.
and also with AIR 1984 SC 1171
;
Chander
v.
Godhani
,
AIR 1981 Pat. 43
)
