Hindu succession act
JEGADEESAN
(Querist) 09 May 2014
This query is : Resolved
Dear Sir,
I want to clarify a doubt regarding Hindu Succession Act.
I think it has comes into force in 1956.
whether it means all the children (male& female) have the rights to get their share from the deceased father's property who was born on or after 1956 ?
Whether it insist to give any equal share to female member(from the deceased father)who has been married before 1956 ?
Pl confirm based on the law applicable to Tamil Nadu.
adv. rajeev ( rajoo )
(Expert) 09 May 2014
If father has died intestate then as legal heirs daughters are also entittle for equal share. It is application to whole india.
JEGADEESAN
(Querist) 09 May 2014
Dear Rajeev Sir,
Thanks for your reply.But question is
If the married daughter can claim the share from her deceased father's property even she has married before 1956?
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 09 May 2014
Mr. Rajeev has given valuable advice. Daughters are also eligible.
Your query is probably to be addressed from point of ‘When the succession has opened’ and if the estate has already been partitioned before 20th Dec, 2004, which you have not posted in your 2nd post too.
THE HINDU SUCCESSION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2005 NO. 39 OF 2005.
“Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect or invalidate any disposition or
alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of property which had taken place
before the 20th day of December, 2004”
If event of partition in the family or death of male coparcener leaving daughters had occurred after March 25, 1989, in Tamil Nadu, but before December 20, 2004, the benefit of enlargement of right will not be available for those who were married as on March 25, 1989, since the State law would be the ruling law on the date of succession.
If no succession has taken place between March 25, 1989, and December 25, 2004, both married and unmarried daughters were on a par till the date of succession on or after December 25, 2004
Valuable advise of learned experts is sought.
dr g balakrishnan
(Expert) 09 May 2014
truth is after 1974 smt indira gandhi as PM made equal share for all children in hindu succession Act; she only correctly modified the Act;
Anirudh
(Expert) 09 May 2014
Dear Mr. Jagadeesan,
Hindu Succession Act, did come into force in 1956.
It deals with the question of inheritance of the property of intestate male and female in respect of their PRIVATE (Personal / self-earned) property. The inheritance will take place in terms of Rule 8 in respect of males intestates and Rule 15 in respect of females intestates.
The inheritance will be to the legal heirs (both sons and daughters will have equal share)
Apart from the above (i.e. inheritance of private/personal/self-earned property) there are also another set of properties known as ANCESTRAL / HUF properties.
Ancestral properties are those properties which a male member has received (prior to coming into force of Hindu Succession Act, 1956) from his father, grand father or great grand father.
In other words, if any male received the property from his father/grandfather/great grandfather prior to coming into force of Hindu Succession Act 1956 ONLY THEN such a property in the hands of the said male member would be an ANCESTRAL PROPERTY and the said male member would be holding it qua his son.
To put it differently, if a property had acquired a character of ANCESTRAL it will continue to remain Ancestral even after coming into force of the Hindu succession Act, 1956, qua the co-parceners taking birth in the family (male and female both).
Conversely, if a property had not attained the character of ANCESTRAL property prior to coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, it will never become an ANCESTRAL property.
Therefore, just because the property belonged to a grand father, great grand father etc., it cannot be automatically assumed that it is ancestral property. One has to first find out whether it ever acquired the character of ANCESTRAL property. Only if it has become ANCESTRAL then the co-parceners will have a right to a share in it, otherwise not.
Such Ancestral properties are also known as co-parcenary properties, as in regard to ancestral property of a joint family, the male member on birth has a right over it. This coparcenary right was denied to the female member (daughters).
Thus, there was denial of gender parity in the matter of property. This parity can be brought by two methods (i) by abolishing the system whereby the male only gets a right or (ii) by making the girl child also equal to the male child in the family.
Kerala adopted the first method of abolishing the joint family property system. But, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Tamilnadu brought gender parity by making the treatment of daughters equal as sons in the family.
Still very many States did not bring in the parity.
At last, the Central Govt. brought amendment in 2005.
Therefore, one should be very clear about the purpose and effect of 2005 amendment (which is related only to co-parcenary property and not for personal/separate/individual/self-acquired properties).
Therefore, for everything and anything the 2005 amendment should not be dragged into picture.
Sankaranarayanan
(Expert) 09 May 2014
yes all children have full and equal rights where are you in tamilnadu
Dr J C Vashista
(Expert) 10 May 2014
Very well advised by the expert Mr. Anirudh. I appreciate his conceptual explaination.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 10 May 2014
All children have equal right in the property of father, deceased intestate. Agree with the experts.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 10 May 2014
well advised By Mr Anirudh
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 10 May 2014
While I fully agree with the wonderful and elaborate explanation given by expert Mr.Anirudh on the subject, I appreciate his explanation which gives answers to the subsequent queries on the subject without they being raised. The opinion is really very much informative and hope this would clear all the doubts of the author who no doubt has not come out with the details and character of property about which he has sought clarification here.
dr g balakrishnan
(Expert) 10 May 2014
2005 Act settled anomalies; now it is clear when 2005 Act came into force then all such laws have to follow 2005 law positioning only, though the 2005 Act did not specifically say any retrospective effect but purpose of the Act is to set right things every where that is what law of interpretation works!
indeed here the questions are hypothetical as discussed in academic circles ! good anyway
Anirudh
(Expert) 10 May 2014
Dear Dr. Balakrishnan,
I think either you have not correctly understood the issues, or rather trying to be make things appear over simplistic!
Further more, I do not understand your saying that the questions here are hypothetical as discussed in academic circles.
I am sorry, everything will appear hypothetical so long as one does not face the problem.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 10 May 2014
Mr. Anirudh has provided nice illustration.
Dr. Balakrishnan is right that the 2005 Act did not specifically say any retrospective effect.
Mr. Kalaiselvan is absolutely correct in pointing out that the author of this post no doubt has not come out with the details.
He has only indicated if the daughter was married before 1956. Had Mr. Jegadeesan posted details we would have gained further from this discussion and also from the learned opinion of experts from and well versed with state laws of Tamilnadu !
It is felt that the relevant date in Tamilnadu is March 25, 1989, Karnataka :July 30, 1994, Maharashtra: June 22, 1994…………
I sincerely wished that the author would post the details.
We can only guess now.
Would the state law would be the ruling law on the date of succession or central law?
General principle being…………… in matters of concurrent jurisdiction as in succession law, central law will prevail over the State law!
Fair reconciliation could be possible.
Kindly persue:
Madras High Court
Mrs.Parameswari @ Gnanasakthi vs Raja Ratinam on 14 June, 2010
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1389273/?type=print
Satya nand aggarwal
(Expert) 12 May 2014
Well explained by Anirudh I don't think, any thing left to be posted. Querist must have uderstood.
