Hindu succession act 2005
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 12 October 2010
This query is : Resolved
i have filed suit for partition of female's share over the ancestral property in the year 2007. my client got married in the year 1999 and her father and brother entered in to a registered partition deed in the year 2000 and they partitioned between them to deprive my client's rights over ancestral property but my client is not a party to the partition.
my client has right as per the Karnataka amended act but the defendants taken contention that karnataka amendment act has been went out in view of 2005 central act. as per central act there should not be a partition before 2004.
sir i verified some judgments of karnataka i am unable to under stand that my client has right in view of Karnataka amended act but in view of 2005 my client looses her right. kindly guide me. thanking you sir.
adv. rajeev ( rajoo )
(Expert) 12 October 2010
When there is regd., partition deed in the year 2000, your client wont get any share.
It is not clear when was there any partition between the brothers of your client.
In detail I will explain wait for that. if you have your mail kindly post it to me
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 12 October 2010
Since you are saying that the property is ancestral, I assume it is ancestral, and then proceed to answer your query.
The Government of Karnataka brought in Hindu Succession (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1994 effective from 30.7.1994 granting equal rights to daughter in coparcenary property.
Accordingly the daughter of a coparcener shall by birthbecome a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son. Whenany partition of a coparcenary property takes place, the daughter should be alloted a share equal to what is allottable to a son.
But the above provision will not be applicable to a daughter, if she was married prior to 20.11.1990 i.e. prior to the commencement of Hindu Succession(Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1990.
Since your client got married only in the year 1999, she is very much eligible to an equal share as that of her brother in the ancestral property.
The contention of the father/brother that the daughter is not eligible for a share since the partition had taken place prior to 9.9.2005 i.e. coming into force of Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005 is not at all tenable.
Their contention that in view of enactment of Central Act in 2005, the State Act will not have effect is also not correct. This is for the reason, that the Central Act came into effect only with effect from 9.9.2005, prior to that it was only the Karnataka Act that was holding the field. Since the partition had taken place in the year 2000 when the Karnataka Act was in force (and the Central Act of 2005 had not come into force) the daughter is definitely entitled to her share in the ancestral property.
s.subramanian
(Expert) 12 October 2010
I fully endorse the view of Mr.Ramachandran. I would like to point out that the Act of 2005 applies to partitions effected subsequent to 24.12.2004 even though the date of coming into force of the said Act is much later.
Kirti Kar Tripathi
(Expert) 12 October 2010
I would like to add one more thing that prior to amendment a female member though has a right in the ancestral property but could apply for partition. However, if any of the male coparcener shows his intention of partition, the property is partitioned under the law and share of female coparcener automatically partitioned. In your case, father and brother of showed their intention to partition the ancestral property by way of partitioned deed, thereby they showed their intention of partition as such right of every female coparcener automatically partitioned under the law. Since they denied your client fro her right, your client can take back her share.
