Daughters claim in disputed property

Can you please share citation / title of the case referred as a (rather any) High Court cannot overrule decision passed by Supreme Court and law passed by Parliament of India as there is no ambiguity on the issue of share of daughter(s) equal to son(s) in intestate property of father ?

Search Google for it. 

Hi,

It might be a case wherein the father died before Hindu Succession Act came into force. In such situations , daughters can't claim a share of father's property. 

Pls check case law of Radhabai Shirke, not sure how much it helps your query 

Rgds

Bala S FCA., LL.B.

I am not sure it could be fake as unable to trace the judgement.

 Hi,

I found the link with full details. I couldn't post as a follow up to my msg as the site doesn't allow.

https://www.theedulaw.in/content/judgements/99/LANDMARK-JUDGMENT-ON-INHERITANCE-RIGHTS-Radhabai-Balasaheb-Shirke-v.-Keshav-Ramchandra-Jadhav

Hope this helps.

Thanks. It is rightly by balas above. The Court held that a daughter had no inheritance rights, either limited or absolute, in her deceased father's property if he died before 1956 while leaving behind both a widow and a daughter.

In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday (November 12) held that a daughter will not have any limited or absolute right of inheritance in the properties of her father, if he has died prior to the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956

A division bench of Justices Atul Chandurkar and Jitendra Jain answered a reference - Whether a daughter could acquire any right, either limited or absolute, by inheritance prior to coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in the property of her deceased father, who died prior to 1956, leaving behind him in addition to such daughter, his widow as well? - made by a single-judge, way back on February 28, 2007.

Answering the said reference, the bench referred to the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and also the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937, which dealt with the issues of rights of women in the family, in the properties of their husbands or fathers.

Case Title: Radhabai Shirke vs Keshav Jadhav (Second Appeal 593 of 1987)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 584

Landmark judgment of Supreme Court on daughter's right to receive share in ancestral property

Accordingly, we hold that the rights under the amendment are applicable to living daughters of living coparceners as on 9th September, 2005 irrespective of when such daughters are born. Disposition or alienation including partitions which may have taken place before 20th December, 2004 as per law applicable prior to the said date will remain unaffected.

Any transaction of partition effected thereafter will be governed by the Explanation.

We are unable to find any reason to hold that birth of the daughter after the amendment was a necessary condition for its applicability. All that is required is that daughter should be alive and her father should also be alive on the date of the amendment.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, CIVIL APPEAL NO.7217 OF 2013

PRAKASH  Vs PHULAVATI & ORS.

Citation;(2016)2 SCC36
Dated;OCTOBER 16, 2015

Whether this judgement stands overruled ? 

Judgement "Prakash vs Phoolawati"  S.C (20116) has been overruled by S.C  by Judgement  " Vinita Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma S.C (2020).The ruling eliminated  judicial inconsistencies  in the interpretation of daughter's inheritance rights.The ruling established  a binding precedent that secures equal coparcenary rights  for daughters and held that they are coparceners by birth and can inherit property even if their father died before 2005 amendment.

Thank you so much Advocate Bhartesh Goyal ji for updating me.