Husbands legal right over wife's inherited property

@Querist,

Ld. Member/Expert Mr. Bharat chugh has replied adequately to your query to the extent of the disclosed facts. The problem is that you have come up with half facts.

From you last para,What I am able to infer(if I am correct) that your wife has in the possession of any inherited property from her grandfather, other than that which was given as gift in the marriage.Since you wife's father is in copercenary relation with such property, he is required to reliquish his rights to make her an absolute owner of that property.

I know, above is a little complex line of words.But I am sure,4-5 careful readings will give you the proper understandings of the reasongs as to why the lawyer is insisting such things.

Note-This reply should be taken as per the declaration given in my profile page.

Thanks,

Regards,

Dear Mr. Sumitra,

         Thank you verymuch for your reply. As i have said in my question a property that belongs to her grand mother(Mothers mother)( who is the absolute owner/Bought by her during her period from the seller) is to be divided between her uncle and herself since her mother/ Grand mother are no more. There is no will and the only legal heirs present now are her uncle and herself. Now to sell this property should we involve her father and if her father has some legal authority over the said property what percentage from her share should be alloted to her father? Thanks in advance!!

@Querist,

First let me Clarify,I am  'Mr. Sumitra kumar'.It's Pronounciation is same as 'Lord Shiva','Lord Krishna','Lord Rama',Ashwathama,Dhritrastra,Duryodhana,Bhima,Arjuna,Udisthera, and so on.

Now coming to query, following should be noted-

1. Her maternal grandmother,as per your question,had two sons only and no any other child,one of which is her father.The share of her father in such case is 50%.

2.Now your wife in such as case holds that 50% property in copercenary with her father.Here copercenary means neither of parties in copercenary relationship can dispose the property without being in consent.

3.IN such a case(point number 2), if either party in such copercenary relationship relinquish his/her right to give the other party the absolute ownership,he/she is required to give it in writing.The reason behind it that as per 'Transfer Property Act 1882', the immovable property transfer should be done in writing and not in oral.

Hope that clarify your doubt.

Note-This reply should be taken as per the declaration given in my profile page.

Thanks,

Regards,

The item (c) of Section 15. 1 should be as under:

(c) thirdly, upon the mother and father;

Please accept my sincere apologies for mispronouncing your name Mr.Sumitra Kumar.Sorry indeed. Thanks a million for your valuable council.  Still there is a miss understanding Let me clarify.

//Her maternal grandmother,as per your question,had two sons only and no any other child,one of which is her father.The share of her father in such case is 50%.// A small misunderstanding here!

My Wife(E)'s maternal grand mother(A) had 2 children,out of which one girl(B) is my wife's mother and  One boy(C) who is my wife's uncle. Now A and B are no more.Both died in 2011. Since my wife's mother(B) died my wife, being only daughter is the legal heir for her blood line, as per the sucession certificate of her maternal grand mother. Now where is her father(D) husband of B  coming in this line and what is his legal share of claim over the said propert?? Kindly enlight me here. Thanks a million for your council!.

@Querist,

Since (B) died intestate, clause(a) subsection (1)section (15) of Hindu Succession Act 1955 comes into play. See above,I am sure you will be able to understand now.Notice the word 'And the husband'. Co-relate the all above replies.

Note-This reply should be taken as per the declaration given in my profile page.

Thanks,

Regards,

Thank you Mr.Sumitra Gi!

Kindly comment on this clause (a) Subsection (2) section 15

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),-

(a) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father, and

so it says inspite of any fact in sub-section-1 if the property is inherited by a deseased hindu female from her father or mother, it should go to her blood line like to her children and even in the absence of her children it should go to her heirs of her father and her husband's link is not mentioned.

How should i take this clause for its meaning! Thanks a tonne again  for your replies!

@Querist,

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1)-

(a) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father; and

(b) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father-in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any predeceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband.

 To all readers of my post including the querist-

Please have a complete attention

The correct interpretation of clause (a)-

It says that if a woman dies intestate, and not having any son/daughter or and not having any grand-children born out of her deceased son/daughter, in such a case the property of the woman is returned to the father of the woman.The point here to emphasize over is the term 'Father'. Here father, in the context, means father of the woman and not father referring to the husband of her children in context.

clause(b) supports the above point in other manner. Read for few times.

Do you still need any more explanation!!!

Note-This reply should be taken as per the declaration given in my profile page.

Thanks,

Regards,

//emphasize over is the term 'Father'. Here father, in the context, means father of the woman and not father referring to the husband of her children in context.//

 Fully agreed. Thank you.

Now

(A) since the said property share of my wife is inharited from her mother side maternal grand mother, using the clause (a) Subsection (2) section 15 shall i conclude that my wife's father cannot claim a legal share in the property?

or

(B) clause (a) of sub-section(1) of section (15 ) should only taken every time  for concluding  legal heirs irrespective of whether the deseased has inherited the property or not.

Thank you!

@Querist,

In your case following should be noted after this long discussion-

Beofore you start reading, read it only in context of wife's/Girl's side property division

A-Wife

X-Husband of A

B-Wife's mother i.e.. A's mother

Y-Husband of B

C-Wife's maternal grand mother or B's mother or A's grandmother

Z-Husband of C

Let the property be P belonged intially to C.

C had the child B so C cannot be called died without heirs.Therfore,Subsection (2) not applied.Therfore,B and Z each has 1 share of P in case C died intestate.

Similirly,B had the child A so B cannot be called died without heirs.Therefore,Subsection(2) not applied.Therefore,A and Y each has 1 share in Property P in case B died intestate.

Now especially in your case, the talk is about immovable property, one has to relinquish or give POA to transfer it to someone else sinch both A and Y has 1 share in that immovable property.

Hope that's enough for this thread or isn't the case!!!

Note-This reply should be taken as per the declaration given in my profile page.

[Last reply to this thread]

Thanks,

Regards,

Dear Mr.Sumitra,

  You are spot on. Thanks for giving a very clear reply.