who will succeed????????
Raghav Sood
(Querist) 19 April 2011
This query is : Resolved
1. A a hindu lady married to B and out of wedlock C daughter was born. (after enactment of HSA)
2. during the lifetime of wife (A) her husband died intestate and the property succeeded by wife (A) and daughter (C) in equal share as per section 8 of HSA. (not disputed)
3. thereafter the (A) wife married to other male and begot three sons the daughter of the A i.e. C remained with the parents of deceased husband B
4. now B wife dies leaving a testament and executed a registered will in favour of her three sons and consequently estate of A wife mutated in the favour of three sons on the basis of registered will.
my query is whether daughter from first husband i.e. c maintain a suit on the basis of succession of the estate of A her mother against three sons so far i am able to understand is that the parties riven in lis i.e. C daughter and three sons are uterine having common ancestress but who will has preferential right to succeed on the basis of succession?????. in case their is any doubt in query please post i had tried to make it lucid as possible as can
waiting for replies
Guest
(Expert) 19 April 2011
According to my views, only 'C' the daughter of the A & B can inherit the property after the death of her mother 'B', who inherited the property from her father. However, had she (A) a legaly valid will duly executed by 'B' in her favour, only then she had the right to divide her inherited property to any one else other than 'C'.
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 20 April 2011
First question to be asked is, whether upon the death of 'B', the property was mutted in the names of his legal heirs 'A' and'C'.
If this had been done (and even otherwise), since the property of the deceased 'B' belonged to two persons 'A' and 'C' equally, at best 'A' could have only given only her portion of the property to her three children through the second marriage. While the 'Will' executed by 'A' would be valid to that extent, yet for giving effect to the WILL, partition of the property has to take place between 'C' and 'A' and thereafter the A's portion will be divided between A's three sons.
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 20 April 2011
Already the properties were partitioned between A & C.
Now C can not claim her share from A, it goes to her three sons.
Raghav Sood
(Querist) 20 April 2011
there is no dispute as to the properties of previous husband between a and C
and there is severance of status between wife and daughter
but a simple question is whether a daughter is entitled to succeed the absolute estate on the basis of succession in the circumstances when her mother (wife A) has married to another male and begot the three sons and under which class of heirs as per HSA???
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 20 April 2011
According to you proper partition has taken place between A and C.
Now your question is whether 'C' being the daughter of A can claim any share in the property of A after her death.
If 'A' had died intestate (i.e. without leaving any Will or Gift), C could have definitely staked her claim to the property left behind by A. But, A had already made a testamentary disposition of her property by way of Will in favour of her three sons (excluding the daughter C). Therefore, C cannot claim any share in the property of A.
Raghav Sood
(Querist) 20 April 2011
Mr. R Rama Chandran as to which class of heirs (per schedule of HSA) she will be entitled to claim the estate this question is left opened
so far i am able to understand the HSA has not provided preference in uterine blood relationship nor the ratio has been defined
as to who may succeed
aprdon if i may wrong
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 20 April 2011
The sons and daughters of 'A' being class-I heirs would have normally succeeded to the property of the deceased. But since in this case, 'A' had made a Will in favour of her sons (she could have made the Will in anybody's favour - not necessarily her sons or daughters - even she could have chosen only one of her three sons etc.) only the sons in whose favour the property has been bequeathed will get the property.
Guest
(Expert) 20 April 2011
I wonder, most of the experts have presumed that proper partition has taken place between A and C, while Mr. Ragahv has not mentioned anywhere that the property was partitioned between 'A' the widow of the deceased (B) and 'C' the daughter of 'B' & 'A', and would have been duly mutated in favour of the widow.
Even Mr. Raghav has clarified subsequently that the property was left open by the deceased. In that case, if the property has not been got mutated in the name of widow and daughter, I do not understand, how A's Will can be considered valid after her remarriage. In my views, since the widow had already severed from the heirship of her previous husband after remarriage, the property should vest in the sole surviving heir (the daughter) of the deceased.
a.manoharan
(Expert) 21 April 2011
As intestate property, C has 1/2 share and her mother had 1/2 share in the total property . 3 sons can have totally only 1/2 share. i.e., each son has 1/6 share each, if not partition was made between mother and daughter "C". if anything beyond this share in Will , it is voidable as far as concerned about the daughter "C". Regarding to mother's share in the succeeded property, 'C" can not claim anything as mother executed will due to her absolute property - nothing but as though self-acquired property.
Raghav Sood
(Querist) 21 April 2011
MR. Dhingra
Mr. Dhingra succession never remains in abeyance,
it opens the moment first husband dies and descended upon to the daughter and wife
consequently both are entitled to succeed the share equally and the property after succession was severed inter se the daughter and wife by valid partition
i have clarified twice that their is no dispute as to the devolution of estate of first husband between daughter and wife
remarriage has no effect upon the same as the previous husband has died and the wife has nuptial tie with another male and begot three sons
now whether the daughter of first marriage can claim the estate of her mother under HSA or not
and regarding Class one Heir
i find it little difficult to interpret the "daughter" mentioned the schedule one to be a full blood or the whether the word "daughter" does include the uterine blood also
coz both the terms are defined in section three of HSA connoting there given meanings
question still open??????
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 21 April 2011
The question stood answered long back. But for some unknown reason(s) you are dragging the issue.
A daughter or son as mentioned in the Schedule [(Class-I) and (Class-II)] of heirs, has no ambiguity. 'C' is verymuch a daughter of 'A' no one can ever deny the same.
No where the Schedule makes any distinction between a full blood / uterine blood daughter.
For instance 'C' is a daughter to 'A' and 'B'. But she is not a daughter to a person whom 'A' married subsequently. Likewise, the sons whom 'A' begot through her subsequent husband, are though her sons, are not sons of her first husband 'B'.
We have to understand the term son or daughter in the above perspective.
For the sons of 'A' through her second husband, according to the Schedule 'C' is not their sister (since she is only a sister by uterine blood and not a sister by full blood.) This question will assume significance, only when the question of intestate succession of the property of any of the brother's or sisters. That situation has not arisen in your case.
As already indicated, since 'A' has willed her property in favour of her sons through her second husband, clearly excluding her daughter 'C', C has no claim over the said property of 'A'.
Raghav Sood
(Querist) 21 April 2011
"dragging the issue"
with all due respect Sir we are here to evolve ourselves with a combine effort to reach a realm
there is no drag race here sir,
well thanks to all for their efforts
i will post in near future if i get something on it
Guest
(Expert) 21 April 2011
I agree with the interpretation, dated 21st April, of Mr. Ramachandran.
For A, irrespective of whether C is from her 1st husband, C will ever reamain the class-I heir of A, like her 3 sons from the 2nd husband, as she is the real mother of her daughter as well as her sons.
But it seems Mr. Raghav has some other idea in his mind and wants to get confirmed by the experts, but does not want to reveal also.
