womens right in father's property
skanda vallishayee
(Querist) 23 September 2010
This query is : Resolved
hello sir/madam
my name is skanda i want to ask a question regarding womens right in father's property, i came to know that women(hindu) who are born before 1956 cant get share in their father's property. is that true, if yes can we go court against these recent amendment act of 1956, regarding women who are born before 1956 should get share
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 23 September 2010
If the property of the father is self-acquired (i.e. purchased by him out of his own income) then he can dispose of the property in any way that he likes. That is, he can sell, gift to anybody, create a will in favour of anybody etc. - No body can question his actions.
However, if he dies without leaving any WILL, and without having gifted the said property to any one, then in that case, the property will be inherited by his class-I heirs. Daughters are also one of the Class-I heirs and as such the daughter will also get equal share.
The recent Amendment which you are talking about is the amendment in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
This amendment is directly in regard to the ancestral properties. (I.e. the property of grand father etc. - NOT self acquired property of the father). In the case of ancestral property, prior to the amendment, only the male members (i.e. son of a father, son of a son etc.) were eligible for share in the property by right of birth. The daughters were not given this right.
However, by way of the latest amendment to the Act, in the year 2005, even the daughters have been granted the equal right in the ancestral property on par with that of the sons.
Thus, in case of any ancestral property, which has not been partitioned prior to 1.1.2005, even daughters will have equal share.
However, if the ancestral property had been partitioned prior to 1.1.2005 and was divided only between the sons and not daughters, the same cannot be questioned now.
Your doubt that the recent amendment is denying equal right to the daughters born prior to 1956 is not correct. In fact, the latest amendment is only trying to give equal right to the daughters as available to the sons, in respect of ancestral properties.
I hope this clarifies your query.
virender
(Expert) 24 September 2010
i agree
Daksh
(Expert) 24 September 2010
I agree.
B.R. BHALLA, ADVOCATE
(Expert) 24 September 2010
Mr Ramachandran has given an elaborate reply to the query. However, in respect of HUF properties, the womens including Mother had only the right of maintenance and not the share.
VENKATRAMAN SHRINIVAS
(Expert) 24 September 2010
Mr.Ramachandran's detailed analysis is correct and clearly explains the position. That is he law obtaining on date. As rightly conveyed by him the assumption that the amendment fetters women's right to succession is illusory and not borne of proper understanding.
