LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

HINDU SUCCESSION ACT 2005

Page no : 2

Guest (n/a)     28 September 2008

In Eramma v. Veerupana and Ors., AIR (1966) SC 1879, the Courts observed-- 

Since your father-in-law died in 1970...the issue of succession opened up in 1970 when this amendment was not in force. Therefore your wife will only be eligible to her share as per the doctrine of "Notional Partition". Unnecessary do not waste your time and relationship asking for one -sixth. The Law commission on Aug 4 , 2008 has also suggested the govt. to further amend the Act to clarify such issues. I am keeping track of this as I have a similar issue.



We may noticethat the Parliament, with a view to confer right upon the female heirs,even in relation to the joint family property, enacted Hindu SuccessionAct, 2005. Such a provision was enacted as far back in 1987 by the State ofAndhra Pradesh. The succession having opened in 1989, evidently, theprovisions of Amendment Act, 2005 would have no application.

Guest (n/a)     28 September 2008

In Eramma v. Veerupana and Ors., AIR (1966) SC 1879, the Courts observed--  We may noticethat the Parliament, with a view to confer right upon the female heirs,even in relation to the joint family property, enacted Hindu SuccessionAct, 2005. Such a provision was enacted as far back in 1987 by the State ofAndhra Pradesh. The succession having opened in 1989, evidently, theprovisions of Amendment Act, 2005 would have no application.

Since your father-in-law died in 1970...the issue of succession opened up in 1970 when this amendment was not in force. Therefore your wife will only be eligible to her share as per the doctrine of "Notional Partition". Unnecessary do not waste your time and relationship asking for one -sixth. The Law commission on Aug 4 , 2008 has also suggested the govt. to further amend the Act to clarify such issues. I am keeping track of this as I have a similar issue.


 


 

_______


koya ratnakar (Manager)     08 December 2008

my mother inherited a joint share in the land of ac 1.02 cents in vijayawada from his father she has 2 brothers and her mother is still alive so we have given the joint property for development for construction of building we have only entered into development agreement next we will enter supplementary agreement or M.O.U in which sharing rights will be there so i want to know what is my mother share

rathi almaula (Consultant)     06 February 2009

Please notify when you have an answer from the Law Commission 2008. My father died in 1982 and I would like to know if the Succession Act of 2005 is applicable so I can get an equal share of ancestral property in Bangalore


 

rathi almaula (Consultant)     06 February 2009

 


Please notify when you have an answer from the Law Commission 2008. My father died in 1982 and I would like to know if the Succession Act of 2005 is applicable so I can get an equal share of ancestral property in Bangalore


 

arunprakaash.m. (advocate)     06 February 2009

you are eligible for inheritance before and even after the amendment of 2005.

Rathnakar P V (civil engineer)     19 March 2009

Andhra High Court


Damalanka Gangaraju And Ors. vs Nandipati Vijaya Lakshmi And Ors. on 21/3/2007

JUDGMENT

D. Appa Rao, J.

1. This is an appeal preferred by the Defendants 1, 2 and 6 against
granting of a Preliminary Decree for partition in the suit filed in
O.S. No. 7 of 1996, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge,
Pithapuram.



1. Even earlier the Supreme Court in Karunanidhi v. Union of India
, held that by Clause (2) of Article 246, concurrent
power is conferred upon both the Union and State Legislatures to
legislate with respect to the subjects included in List-Ill. Hence if
both the Parliament and a State legislature make laws relating to the
same concurrent subject, a question of conflict arises between the two
enactments. The conflict is solved by Article 254(1) by providing that
in such a case the State Law shall be void to the extent it is
repugnant to or inconsistent with the Central Act.

42. Undoubtedly the Central enactment prevails over the State Act and
the latter is deemed to have repealed. In case of overlappings of a
matter as between them, predominance has to be given to the Union
legislation.

43. Therefore, after 9.9.2005, all the daughters have to be treated as
coparceners entitled to equal shares, irrespective of the fact whether
they are majors or minors or their marriages were performed before
5.9.1985 or subsequent to 5.9.1985. In view of the subsequent events,
viz., the amendment to Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, I hold that
the plaintiff is entitled to 1/6th share instead of 1/3rd share in the
plaint schedule properties including property covered under Exs.B4 and
B5. However, the land covered under Ex.B3 sale deed has to be excluded
from partition. The plaintiff is entitled to 1/6th share in the plaint
A-schedule properties as well as B-schedule house.
1 Like

Senthil Kumar Natarajan (PA)     03 September 2010

Hi,

I am from Hindu Joint Family. My Great grand dad has 2 sons + 1 one daughter. My great grand dad passed away in 1970. My great grand dad's first son passed away in 1960. Great grand dad has 12 acres of land in tamil nadu. The pattas were under the name of the 2 sons. The property left undivided. His daughter got married before 1945 with huge dowry. Will she get share form my great grand dad's property? if so, how much?

Sanjukta Das (Manager)     16 November 2010

Dear Sir,

Please dicus about Stridhan in light of HSA(amendment) 2005.

We are resident of West Bengal. I am the only child(Daughter) of my parent (Married).

My father is trying to get the 100% of my Mother's property which she was get from my Grand ma.

Pl. help

Regards,

Sanjukta Das

Sanjukta Das (Manager)     16 November 2010

Dear Sir,

What is the term "Deserted" express and its effects.

Pl. elaborate.

Sanjukta Das.

Zein (Employee)     10 May 2011

Is the section 23 of Hindu Succession Act 2005 recinded.

What is the relevace & sanctity of section 29A,

Vide the said section,a Married women having her own property/house ,married prior to 2005 & not divorsed or seperated form her Husband  is not entailed her rights or lein on the Parents property .

Pl clarify & advise.

 

Chandini

Zein (Employee)     10 May 2011

Sections 29 A,29B & 29C of HSA 2005 contradicts yr stance.Pl confirm

S Tejwanth Kaur (law student)     27 August 2011

Originally posted by :Rathnakar P V
" Andhra High Court Damalanka Gangaraju And Ors. vs Nandipati Vijaya Lakshmi And Ors. on 21/3/2007JUDGMENT D. Appa Rao, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred by the Defendants 1, 2 and 6 against granting of a Preliminary Decree for partition in the suit filed in O.S. No. 7 of 1996, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram.1. Even earlier the Supreme Court in Karunanidhi v. Union of India , held that by Clause (2) of Article 246, concurrent power is conferred upon both the Union and State Legislatures to legislate with respect to the subjects included in List-Ill. Hence if both the Parliament and a State legislature make laws relating to the same concurrent subject, a question of conflict arises between the two enactments. The conflict is solved by Article 254(1) by providing that in such a case the State Law shall be void to the extent it is repugnant to or inconsistent with the Central Act. 42. Undoubtedly the Central enactment prevails over the State Act and the latter is deemed to have repealed. In case of overlappings of a matter as between them, predominance has to be given to the Union legislation. 43. Therefore, after 9.9.2005, all the daughters have to be treated as coparceners entitled to equal shares, irrespective of the fact whether they are majors or minors or their marriages were performed before 5.9.1985 or subsequent to 5.9.1985. In view of the subsequent events, viz., the amendment to Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/6th share instead of 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule properties including property covered under Exs.B4 and B5. However, the land covered under Ex.B3 sale deed has to be excluded from partition. The plaintiff is entitled to 1/6th share in the plaint A-schedule properties as well as B-schedule house. "

Sir,

Thanks, your information is useful for me kindly give me the SC case Karunidhi vs union of India 's case citation.

S Tejwanth Kaur (law student)     31 August 2011

Desertion means the intentional permanent forsaking and abandonment of one spouse by the other,without that other's consent,and without reasonable cause.

Desertion implies two conditions, namely :

(1)Factum of Separation and

(2) Intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end.

Advocate Nishith Pandit (Practicing lawyer)     03 September 2011

Whether the girl get the right of coparcenary is she has born before commencement of Hindu Succession Amendment act, 2005...


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register