impect Amendement 2005,on section 14 of Hindu sucsession Act 1956
Pritam Saini, Advocate
(Querist) 14 December 2010
This query is : Resolved
After amendment of 2005 a female inherited ancestral property from his father being a coparcner. Whether son of female can claim his share in her above said property while section 14 of the Act said female is absolute owner
adv. rajeev ( rajoo )
(Expert) 14 December 2010
Why not? but after the death of the female being a legal heir he can claim the share. I think I am right.
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 14 December 2010
Son of the female coparcenar, who got her share in the ancestral property, cannot claim any share from the same when she is alive. Even after her death, the said property would go by way of inheritance by her legal heirs, in case she has not disposed of the property by any testamentary disposition. During her life time, the said property is the absolute private property of the female concerned and she can do anything as she likes with it.
Ahmed Daud Girach
(Expert) 15 December 2010
The crux of Law is empowerment of woman when she is alive is absolute owner of the property.In other way she has same rights and liability a man has when a person inherits property.Yes it is absolute property of woman her son as a matter of right can not claim it but he should look aftear her mother and gain love and affection from her and can get it through "will".Of course as mother pleases.
Pritam Saini, Advocate
(Querist) 27 December 2010
thanks of all expert.now my question is specialy to Mr.ramachandren prior to amedment femele was on lower footing then logic of section 14 understood.But after amendment femele is on equal footing a male.whether now section 14 of the act is not voilate the article 14&15 of the constitution.I invite both side suggestion with logic and case law from all respeted experts
M V Gupta
(Expert) 28 December 2010
Prior to amendment of Sec.14 of the HS Act in 2005, coparcenership was restricted to male members of the family. It did not mean that female memebrs did not have rights in the ancestqrl property. Only disability was that a female memebr of the family could not insist for partition of the family property if the male members were not interested in the partition. Now the effect of the amenddment is only to enlarrge the rights of the female memebrs to demand for partition as a male memebr can. In fact the amendment is to confer equality to the female memebrs and is in consonace with Article 14 of the Constitution.
Pritam Saini, Advocate
(Querist) 05 January 2011
i disagree you to daughter have full right except partition because prior to amendment in ancestral property daughter succeeded very limited share, for example a having three sons and a daughter and having 12 acre ancesstrel land. At the time of notional partition 12 acer land will be divided in three sons and father in equal share i.e. 3 acre each after that 3 acre land of father will divided in three son and one daughter in equal.But after amendment daughter are having same right in ancesstral property.
