Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

yuno (none)     25 December 2012

Daughters' rights to property

 

Events relevant to the issue

Father (hereinafter referred to as ‘F’ ) of three sisters (S1, S2 AND S3)  and two brothers( B1 AND B2)  passed away on 26th June 2002.  During lifetime he had executed first will registered on 24/01/1991 and second (last will) will registered on 28/01/1995 clearly cancelling the first will referring the registration reference and the reasons for cancelling the earlier will.  The last will referred to two properties, self acquired and ancestral.  The self acquired property namely a site in Bangalore, and so stated in his will, was bequeathed to two sons. This in contradiction to the first will in which a portion was to the three sisters.  The said property in Bangalore was in possession and enjoyment of the two brothers B1 and B2, for  over ten years, since 2002 and khata was also changed in revenue records in 2004.

 

The dates of birth / marriage dates of the heirs of 'F'

S1           23/04/1950                         31/05/1970                        

S2           18/08/1955                         22/05/1977                        

S3           20/08/1957                         26/06/1981

B1           05/10/1952                         18/10/1981

B2           10/11/1959                         06/05/1988

 

Whereas, in the year 1983  a partition suit was filed by two brothers of ‘F’ in respect of ancestral property situated in a village in Karnataka, (father of 'F' died intestate)  the suit was in progress for eight years and with a view to settle the issue, the five brothers ( F was represented by B1 as his power of attorney holder ) executed a settlement agreement, which was filed before the Hon Court seeking consent decree, which was passed by the Hon Court recording the said agreement  in the suit proceedings.  The agreement listed, not only the ancestral properties but also various other self acquired properties of the five brothers, as the respective person’s list of properties to his name. This listing was so done even though the original suit between 'F' and his brothers was in respect of only the ancestral properties situated in a village in Karnataka and the self earned properties of the brothers was never a subject matter in the original suit.

 

Now, on 28/02/2012 two of the sisters S1 and S2 filed a suit against brothers B1, B2 and sister S3, seeking one fifth share of all the properties listed in the settlement agreement filed in the partition suit of 1983 referred to in paragraph two above.  The suit did not refer to the property at Bangalore alone but all the properties listed in the earlier suit.  Whereas several of the properties listed were sold during the lifetime of ‘F’ and also a portion of the property at Bangalore during the lifetime of 'F' and referred in the last will the reasons for sale of the same as towards celebration of marriage of daughters in the year 1981.

 

From actions of the three sisters, it appears that the third sister S3, though named as third defendant, is in fact antagonistic towards the brothers considering that they were all in  close contact and collusion, timing the filing of suit on very same day a wedding was concluded in which all the five members attended amicably at that time.

 

Questions:

Under HSA amendment 2005, will the sisters S1, S2 and S3 derive any right in the above matter considering their respective dates of birth and dates of marriage?

In the event,  the list of properties contained self acquired properties, in the above referred settlement agreement, entered into by 'F' and his four brothers,   are the properties viewed as ancestral by virtue of having been listed in an earlier partition suit?

Does the property listed in the said settlement agreement (bearing the seal of the Court with the original suit Number), of 'F' and his brothers in the earlier suit of 1983 , become ancestral?

Does 'F' have the right to register will bequeathing  property acquired in the said settlement agreement at his choice?

Since  B1 having signed the said settlement agreement, albeit as attorney for ‘F’, was confirming that the landed property at Bangalore as  ancestral?

In the event the third defendant S3, files a written statement agreeing with contentions of plaintiffs S1 and S2,  will such reversal of roles as supporting factor in favour of the  plaintiffs?

Do the sisters S1, S2 and S3 have any right to claim share of property in view of the respective dates on which they were married?

The defendant brothers B1 B2 had verbally communicated to the sisters about the terms of the last will, after demise of 'F', since the property at Bangalore was the only property which was of value and the ancestral properties were in possession of others and proving difficult to recover.   Will the last will registered be valid and binding?



Learning

 4 Replies

Advocate Rohit (Advocate)     25 December 2012

if all the transfer of property by will had taken place before 20th December, 2004 then the sisters can't challenge the same as the Ammendment in HSA doesnot cover any partion of property happened prior to 20th December, 2004.

 

Regards,

Advocate Rohit Dalmia

9324538481

Mumbai

Murali Rajendra (Training Manager)     26 December 2012

Dear Sir, Thank you. If a part of the schedule of Property mentioned is transferred in 2004 April can it be challengedby Daughters S1 & s2? In this case the sister s3 is a defendant and reasons best known to her is a Ex Parte. Thank you Sir

yuno (none)     27 December 2012

Dear Shri. Rohit Dalmia,

We thank you for your kind reply.  Kindly, elaborate the term "all the transfer of property by will had taken place before 20th December, 2004 "  One of the properties in the question was leased by late F and also bequeathed to the two sons by means of his last registered will.  Would that fulfill the term "all the transfer of property by will had taken place before 20th December, 2004" as the lease and will were dated before 20/12/2004 as also physical possession of the property.

 

Kindly also let us know whether the sister no: s3, who has so far remained ex-parte, does appear as defendant 3 and supports the claim of the plaintiffs since she stands to benefit (apparently she is affectionate towards the sisters s1 and s2 )

with regards 

Advocate Rohit (Advocate)     27 December 2012

If the property was transfered by will then no one can rasie any objection except to the genuinity of the will. Further, the right of the female in the ancestral and parents property shall come into effect from 20/12/2004 thus any division taken place before 20/12/2004 cannot be challenged by the Female under Hindu Succession Act.

 

Regards,

Advocate Rohit Dalmia

9324538481

Mumbai


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register