Right of married daughters in fathers ancestral property

i dont think so.bcoz all daughters married before 1994, and as grandfather died in 1995, succession taken place in 1995.maharashtra state ammendment of 1994 to HSA 1956, is interesting n useful in this case. daughters wil get share in their fathers share, at time of notional partition.

My brother-in-law has transferred whole property ancestral and self acquired by his father and property gifted to his mother by their parents during marriage by way WILL unregistered and GIFT DEED, without informing his 7 nos. sisters, who now feel robbed off of their birth right. Out of 7 sisters 5 sisters have filed suite for partition in Sr Division Court in Gulbarga, Karnatka. In his reply to suite in the Court, he has narrated above things, but he has not mentioned any thing about informing about the WILL and GIFT DEED to his co siblings. Can 7 Sisters will ever get their birth right which is equal to fundamental right according Hindu Succession Act 2005 amended?

It is my opinion that as per Section 6 of the HSA 2005 (Amendment Act) to the Hindu Succession Act,1956   , the daughters are also  co parceners by birth. The HSA ,1956 act being a Central Act it overrides the State Acts in this regard. (1) If any provision of a law made by the legislature of State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of Clause (2), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail .

 In your case at  the time of death of the father in 1995 itself,  the daughters are also co parceners .If the property is not alienated or disposed  or partitioned by registered deed or by a degree of a final court order   before 20.12.2004 by the sons ,the daughters can claim partition and equal share as that of a son.Unregisterd Gift deed,Family arrangements etc are not valid .

Please refer N.V.Pushpalatha Vs V.Padma (Kar)H.C.In that case though father died in   31.12.1984 inte state it was held that the daughters are entitled to equal share with sons.

AK

How can u say that, at death of my grandfa in 1995, daughters are coparcerceners? At that time, 2005 ammendment was not into existence.The ruling ammendment at the latest, was maharashtra state ammendment 1994, which wil b applicable. Secondly, succession is taken place in 1995; at death of grandfa.the current documents were accordingly updated.. Another important aspect is that, ammendments are prospective, and not retrospective. If u read the GR of 2005 ammendment, it starts as, " on and from the commencement of 2005 ammendment....." The motive of state ammendments to hsa 1956, and 2005 ammendment, was same, so as to remove gender discimination.. Kindly giv ur argument

How can u say that, at death of my grandfa in 1995, daughters are coparcerceners? At that time, 2005 ammendment was not into existence.The ruling ammendment at the latest, was maharashtra state ammendment 1994, which wil b applicable. Secondly, succession is taken place in 1995; at death of grandfa.the current documents were accordingly updated.. Another important aspect is that, ammendments are prospective, and not retrospective. If u read the GR of 2005 ammendment, it starts as, " on and from the commencement of 2005 ammendment....." The motive of state ammendments to hsa 1956, and 2005 ammendment, was same, so as to remove gender discimination.. Kindly giv ur argument

I relied on a land mark judgement decided  On: 19.03.2010 by Hon’ble  N. Kumar and A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ. in the case of Appellants: Pushpalatha N.V.W/oNemraj(1)Vs.Respondent: V. Padma Widow of Vasantha Kumar D.N.,(2), Asha N.V. W/o Shantharaj(3), N.V. Tejkumar (4)and N.V. Bahubali (5)(Appi)..It is my opinion that the above case  is similar to your’s

Judgement quotes:

126. Coming to the facts of this case, it is not in dispute that it is conceded by the defendants that the schedule properties are co-parcenary properties. The kartha of the Joint Hindu Family, D.N. Vasanth Kumar died on 31.12.1984 inte state. There was no partition between him and his sons during his lifetime. He left behind 2 sons and the two daughters including the plaintiff apart from the 1^st defendant widow. By virtue of the Amendment Act, the plaintiff the daughter of a coparcener in a Joint Hindu Family governed by the Mitakshara Law by birth becomes a co-parcenar in her own right in the same manner as the son and have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son. There were 5 co-parcenars of the Hindu Undivided Family on the date prior to the date of the death of her father. She acquired the right by birth in the co-parcenary property. Therefore, she would be entitled to equal share in the coparcenary property, i.e., 1/5^th share.

129. In that view of the matter, we pass the following order:

(iii) It is declared that the plaintiff is entitled to 6/25^th share in the plaint A, B and E schedule properties.

 Note by me : The Plaintiff’s  (Daughter ) share is the total of 1/5^th of the property as co-parcener and 1/5^th out of 1/5^th share of her father’s notional share which comes to 1/25 th share .

1/5+1/25= 6/25 

In which state, the said property was distributed? whether that state had passed any ammendment to HSA1956; like maharashtra state ammendment 1994? as per what u mentioned, it seems, this state hasnt passed any ammendment to HSA1956.therfore only HSA 1956 and 2005 ammendment are only in picture.so, in this case, its right , that partition wil be as per 2005 ammendment. secondly, on this judgement, my question to court is that, if it is accepting daughter as a coparcener, in this case, using 2005 ammendment; then, why notional partition is needed? directly ther wil b 4 equal parts, all being coparcenary? bcoz, court has used notional partition, as well as it said, daughter is coparcenary, i feel it is mixing HSA 1956 and 2005 ammendments, in its own ways..meaning of this judgement is not clear to me.. wat u say?

The State is Karnataka. See the First para of my first post .The Central Amendment of the HSA repeals all the state amendments and have an overriding effect. The Judgement I mentioned is very clear. It is sub judice to discuss about the issue which is pending before a court. If you have any doubts pl. consult a property lawyer in person or read the full judgement .

Somone gets share, after death of coparcener, or partition. It is important to note, when the successiin has taken place..in my case, succession taken place in 1995, at death of my grandfa.shares are automatically divided at succession, as per ruling law, which was in turn, maharashtra state 1994 ammendment..thus 2005 ammendment has nothing to do, in deciding shares in this case.its importany yo note, when succession of property has taken place, and the ruling law, governing at that time..

All right. If you are not keen to read the judgement I mentioned , I wish you all the best.

All right. If you are not keen to read the judgement I mentioned , I wish you all the best.