Ancesters property succession act(2005) amendment
anil
(Querist) 05 December 2013
This query is : Resolved
My grandfather died in 1981(Maharashtra state), leaving behind one son and six daughters(all married)at the time of his death and some property.After his death property was transferred to my father and grandmothers name.My grandmother died in 1994, after her death property got transferred to my fathers name in 2000(without any will of grandmother/grandfather and even without any no objection certificate/permission from all sisters)
Now my fathers sisters are asking for registering their name in the property.
My question is how can they ask for such thing? Is there any law which avoids them from registering in property as they all were married before 1981 and being only earning member of family, my father took care for everything from their studies to marriage and after marriage also.
I have read somewhere that married daughters before December 2004 can not ask share in ancestors property.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 05 December 2013
was it self acquired property of grandfather? ?
how was property transferred in name of father and grand mother without consent of other legal heirs ?
how was property transferred in name of father on death of grand mother without consent of sisters?
sisters can file partition suit .
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 05 December 2013
Sisters have share in the property, they can claim.
R.K Nanda
(Expert) 05 December 2013
agree with experts.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 05 December 2013
Sisters have now equal share in the ancestral property since the implementation of HSA 2005.
anil
(Querist) 07 December 2013
Sirs,
The property was transferred to grandmother & fathers name on oral permission at that time and also no daughter wanted to register their names.
sir,
i am confused to understand below clauses 6.c & 4.b which indicates married daughters before this amendment are not eligible as per clause 6.c & also the property is already registered as per clause 4.b:
1[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 coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son;
(c) be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenary property as that of a son,
and any reference to a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to include a reference to a daughter of a coparcener:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect or invalidate any disposition or alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of property which had taken place before the 20th day of December, 2004.
(b) any alienation made in respect of or in satisfaction of, any such debt, and any such right or alienation shall be enforceable under the rule of pious obligation in the same manner and to the same extent as it would have been enforceable as if the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 had not been enacted.
Explanation.-For the purposes of clause (a), the expression "son", "grandson" or "great-grandson" shall be deemed to refer to the son, grandson or great-grandson, as the case may be, who was born or adopted prior to the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.(5) Nothing contained in this section shall apply to a partition, which has been effected before the 20th day of December, 2004.Explanation.- For the purposes of this section "partition" means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court.
R.V.RAO
(Expert) 09 March 2014
HSA amendment Act 2005 conferred a constitutional right on women of an equal share of property along with male members.
so the women can claim such right at any time after the year 2005.
marriage before 2005 is not a criterion for denying such a right.distribution of property had not taken place before 2005.that is the criterion.
it is not ancestral property because yours is not 4 th generation in the branch of your family tree( to be ancestral , the property must descend from great grand father,grand father,father and to son).
Since it is self acquired property of your grand father , and as he died intestate,the property dwells equally on all his class 1 legal heirs ie. his wife(your grand mother)and his son(your father) and his daughters( your father's sisters) are all equal claimants to the property.
but since, after your grand father 's demise, no property distribution among legal heirs took place,the problem has arisen now.
now it is settled law that your father's sisters are equal claimants to the property as your father .
R.K Nanda
(Expert) 09 March 2014
no more to add.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 09 March 2014
Nanada sir is right!
after all an advocate of supremo court!????
SHIT YAAR BULL SHIT!
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 09 March 2014
WHAT MADE YOU TO REPLY TWICE NANDA JI WHEN EARLIER YOU AGREED TO EXPERTS IN YOUR EARLIER REPLY!?
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 09 March 2014
HeLL of admin too!
WHY YOU DO NOT GET MY ACCOUNT DELETED?
I am in great agony!
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 09 March 2014
Mr.SETHI LABORS to answer BUT NANDA IS A SHORT CUTTIER ADMIN!
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 09 March 2014
IF I DESIRE I CAN SURPASS ANY NUMBER BARRING THAT OF MAKKAD JI ! ANY TIME ANY DAY EVEN WITHOUT ADOPTING YOUR STYLE NANDA BUT MY ATTITUDE IS DIFFERENT??QUESTION OKAY?
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 09 March 2014
I advise you toleave below my pub..? okay!
