Married daughter right on ancestral property


Dear Sir,

 

If women is married in 1991.

 

she has ancestral property purchase in 1955 by her late grand father who died without making will. Now property is in her fathers name written as came from inheritance on 7/12.

 

Whether she will get equal right same as her brothers after her father.

 

As Hindu Succession (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 1994 says

CHAPTER IIA

SUCCESSION BY SURVIVORSHIP

29A.

Equal rights of daughter in coparcenary property.— Notwithstanding anything contained in section 6 of this Act—

(i) in a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara Law, the daughter of a coparcener shall, by birth, become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as a son and have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son inclusive of the right to claim by survivorship; and shall be subject to the same liabilities and disabilities in respect thereto as the son;

(ii) at a partition in a joint Hindu family referred to in clause (i), the coparcenary property shall be so divided as to allot to a daughter the same share as is allotable to a son:

Provided that the share which a pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter would have got at the partition if he or she had been alive at the time of the partition, shall be allotted to the surviving child of such pre-deceased son or of such pre-deceased daughter:

Provided further that the share allotable to the pre-deceased child of a pre-deceased son or of a pre-deceased daughter, if such child had been alive at the time of the partition, shall be allotted to the child of such pre-deceased child of the pre-deceased son or of the pre-deceased daughter as the case may be;

(iii) any property to which a female Hindu becomes entitled by virtue of the provisions of clause (i) shall be held by her with the incidents of coparcenary ownership and shall be regarded, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, as property capable of being disposed of by her by will or other testamentary disposition;

(iv) nothing in this Chapter shall apply to a daughter married before the date of the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 1994;

(v) nothing in clause (ii) shall apply to a partition which has been effected before the date of the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 1994;

[Vide Maharashtra Act 39 of 1994, sec. 2 (w.e.f. 22-6-1994).]

 

 

But Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 says

 

 The relevant part of Section 6 reads as follows: “6. (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) also by birth become a coparcener in her own right; the same manner as the son here; (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 and disabilities 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: …” Implications: The newly introduced section 6 provides that a daughter shall by birth become a coparcener in her own right. The implications of the introduction prima facie appear to be that a daughter stands on an equal footing with a son of a coparcener and is invested with all rights, including the right to seek partition of the coparcenary property. Problematic interpretations: The newly introduced section 6 begins with the words “on and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005”.

 

 A question therefore arises as to the status of women married prior to the commencement of the Amendment Act, i.e. prior to 9th September 2005 (“said commencement date”). In other words, would women married prior to the said commencement date have a right to claim a share in partition of joint family property occurring subsequent to the said commencement date? Arguments in favour of wide interpretation: A perusal of the Opening Speeches at the time of introduction of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Bill, 2004 in Parliament; consideration of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Amendment Act and comparison with existing State legislations seems to lead to the conclusion that the Amendment seeks to introduce the concept of gender equality and consequently draws no specific distinction between married and unmarried women.

 

Please give your valuable suggestion

1) What is her right on ancestral property

 

2) Whether the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 supersites Hindu Succession (Maharashtra Amendment) Act 39, 1994

 

3) If she takes divorce in 2013 weather it will make any difference in her right on ancestral property?

 

Kind Regards

 
Reply   
 

Since it is after 2005, your family hasnt made partition yet, you have equal rights.

 
Reply   
 


LEAVE A REPLY


    

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



 

  Search Forum








×

  LAWyersclubindia Menu