Clarification on hindu heirs

Is it the same query:........

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Succession-of-property-141886.asp

Apparently yes.

Have you consulted a very able counsel specializing in revenue/property/civil matters with all docs on record?

What, really, is the problem!

The real problem Venu Sir, is definition of this BROTHER word in legal terms. Does it include predeased brother also within this term? (I mean heirs of the predeased brother).

Kumar Sir, I do not understand your ''apparently yes''.

Yes to question 1 or question 2? Includes predeased person within this BROTHER word?

I am not from a legal background.

I thank you all.

However, a specialist has answered COMPLETELY seeing all the documents and as per the existing hindu succession act i.e. HINDU SUCCESSION ACT 1956 CLAUSE NO. 9. It states that --

9. Order of succession among heirs in the Schedule
Among the heirs specified in the Schedule, those in class I shall take simultaneously and to the  exclusion of all other heirs; those in the first entry in class II shall be preferred to those in the second entry; those in the second entry shall be preferred to those in the third entry; and so on in succession.

And also there are some modification made by the Supreme court of India in 2005.

Whatever, I think some earlier answers to my question did not follow the existing law of India -- instead replies stated OWN BELIEF OF THE REPLIERS.

And Kumar Sir, Pls do not mind, but there is no APARENTLY in the eyes of law -- either YES or No.

yes it includes the pre-deceased brother also in case there is no heir in the Schedule I.

Originally posted by : Satya
	I thank you all. However, a specialist has answered COMPLETELY seeing all the documents and as per the existing hindu succession act i.e. HINDU SUCCESSION ACT 1956 CLAUSE NO. 9. It states that -- 9. Order of succession among heirs in the Schedule Among the heirs specified in the Schedule, those in class I shall take simultaneously and to the  exclusion of all other heirs; those in the first entry in class II shall be preferred to those in the second entry; those in the second entry shall be preferred to those in the third entry; and so on in succession. And also there are some modification made by the Supreme court of India in 2005. Whatever, I think some earlier answers to my question did not follow the existing law of India -- instead replies stated OWN BELIEF OF THE REPLIERS. And Kumar Sir, Pls do not mind, but there is no APARENTLY in the eyes of law -- either YES or No.

Dear LCI Querist @ Mr. Satya,

I have already mentioned in my 1st post, the link to the other thread initiated by you.

In other thread initiated by you whose link is mentioned in my 1st post, in this thread, I have asked is this thread initiated by you, is same query................

You have not responded to it; for reasons best known to you!

Ateast I try my level best with limited understanding to respond and even post illustrations, applicable enactments, and citations...

Dear LCI Querist @ Mr. Satya,

You may not like it but it is upto the querist to draft the query in concise and precise manner so as to convey a clear message in shortest possible form.

I have also asked you if you have shown all docs on record to a very able counsel.

Online discussions have its own limitations; for querist and members/experts.

In any case the querist must show all docs on record to a very able local counsel of unshakable repute and integrity specializing in concerned field of law e.g; civil/succession/testamentary matters as in your case and well versed with local/customary rules/laws applicable to the matter........

You have done well by showing the docs to a specialist as posted by you.

However you have not posted the clear reply of the specialist approached by you on the point being raked up by you and which Supreme Court of India clarification in 2005,  and ……………..anything else!

Did the specialist approached by you mention Act 39 of 2005?

Or did the specialist approached by you mention Supreme Court of India clarification in 2005? If yes what are these clarifications and what exactly these have to do with your query?

Nevertheless: Let us try to satiate your inquisition; a period of prolonged and intensive questioning.

You may go thru:

Supreme Court of India

K. Raj And Anr vs Muthamma 

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1683101/

Subsequently Act 39 of 2005 mentioned below:

Central Government Act

The Hindu Succession Act, 1956

31 Repeals .

Explanation.—In this Schedule, references to a brother or sister do not include references to a brother or sister by uterine blood. ------------------------------- 1. Added by Act 39 of 2005, sec. 7 (w.e.f. 9-9-2005).

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/685111/

You may also go thru:

The Hindu Succession Act, 1956; Sec;8(b),9,11

If brother in ScheduleII (ClassII) has pre-deceased the brother (owner of property) as in your query;....................then such pre-deceased brother  shall not get any share.

In other words enteries in ScheduleII (ClassII) that are alive as on date of death of brother (owner of property) as in your query;...................shall get share..................and pre-deceased brother/sister..........ones shall not get any share.

At the same time Legal heirs of enteries in ScheduleII (ClassII) that died after death of brother (owner of property) as in your query;...................shall get equal share.

Hope you are clear and have NO further query, atleast on this matter!

Note that;

“At the same time Legal heirs of enteries in ScheduleII (ClassII) that died after death of brother (owner of property) as in your query;...................shall get equal share…………………”

Implies….

“At the same time Legal heirs of enteries in ScheduleII (ClassII) that died after death of brother (owner of property) as in your query;...................shall get equal share…………………from corresponding entry in   ScheduleII (ClassII).

Originally posted by : Rajdeep Majumder
	yes it includes the pre-deceased brother also in case there is no heir in the Schedule I.

Dear Mr.Rajdeep Majumder,

Kindly excuse; 

My impression is different from your impression.