HINDU SUCCESSION ACT 2005
SWAMINATHAN
(Querist) 15 August 2009
This query is : Resolved
An ancesterol house in a damaged condition is in my wife's native place. My wife's 1st brother was residing in that house for quiet sometime. My wife's father and mother died in 1960 and 1985 respectively.They have not left any registered will about the property.My wife and her elder sister filed a suite during 2006(after the amendment came into force).Will my wife and her sister get equal share though her brother says that the sisters are entitled to 1/12 of the property nevertheless her another brother is willing to give equal share. Pl clarify whether sisters are entitled equal share or only 1/12 of the property. Pl do clarify.
A V Vishal
(Expert) 15 August 2009
Your wife shall be entitled to equal share in the property. Clarify about the 1/12 part, your query is silent on it.
Kiran Kumar
(Expert) 15 August 2009
Vishal Ji is correct, she is entitled to equal share.
no matter the litigation is pending, but the property was not partitioned in fact prior to the amendment.
Y V Vishweshwar Rao
(Expert) 15 August 2009
The Followign is one of the projection of the Claims made in the above Query
In 1960 Father died - by that time Father and Two brothers are only share holders
If on the date of Death of Father(1960) Notional Partition is assumed -the shares are :-
Late Father Share 1/3
to be succeeded by 2sons,2Daughters &Wife-died 1985
First Son Share 1/3
Secodn Son Share 1/3
Father 1/3 rd Share ( 33.33 %) divided in to four shares Two brothers and Two sisters 33.33/4
= 8% aprox. or 1/12th Share !
SWAMINATHAN
(Querist) 15 August 2009
If the parents had died after the amendment ie sep 2005 the daughters are entitled for equal share. since the parents expired before the amendment daughters would be eligible for equal share in father's notional portion only. Is it correct? 1/12 arrived as follows. Father's 1/3 share divided in to 4 shares ie 2 brothers and 2 sisters. whether it is correct?
A V Vishal
(Expert) 15 August 2009
Yes, to an extent, but only in case of any disposition or alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of property which had taken place before the 20th day of December, 2004.
A V Vishal
(Expert) 15 August 2009
REVIEW PETITION NO.37 OF 2008
1. Smt. Bagirathi
2. Smt. Hamsaveni
3. Smt. Premavathi
4. Smt. Sarguna
5. Smt. Saroja
6. Smt. Suryakumari .. Petitioners
Vs.
1. S. Manivanan
2. S. Venkatesan .. Respondents
Review Petition filed under Section 114 and Or.47 Rule 1 CPC., against the
judgment dated 29.9.2006 in OSA.No.281 of 2001.
I have come across this judgement today of the Chennai HC, Kindly refer to it on applicability of the amendment of the Hindu Succession Act, probably I feel I have wrongly advised in the matter.
A V Vishal
(Expert) 15 August 2009
Please go through the observations of the latest SC judgement
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/419509/
