Can married granddaughter claim ancestral property?

A. As you said, daughters cannot claim equal right over ancestral property if the father died before 2005 which confirmed by the Supreme Court in Prakash vs. Phulavathi Case. However, in your case that you need to get clear clarity as to whether grandfather purchased property is coming under the ancestral property or not? Answer is Negative: If you want to establishe in respect of ancestral property that there must be four generation and enjoyment of the property shall be without obstruction which meanse inheritance or partition etc.,

B. Your sister can be claimed their respective share over the father's property under the inheritance which guaranteed under the Section 8 of the Hindu Sucession Act, 1956. Hence, they can alienate or tranfer their proportionate share not whole. Hence, you can approach the court by filing a partition suit against your sister and get the stay or injunction order as to not to alienate the property till the final decree passed. Moreover, you can exercise pre emptive right under the Partition Act as first preferential right if your sister is going to sell any land which is part and parcel of your property.

Ah thank you for taking the time to respond.

No, I am the eldest daughter. My father is still alive and my grandfather passed away in 1992.

All of the property was purchased by my grandfather and inherited a few acres from his father/my great grand father. Nothing was added by my father nor my brothers.

The issue is that the 3 brothers and my youngest sister have teamed up with my parents to sell everything. When I requested them my share, their response was that I as a married daughter of 35+ years of marriage have no claims on my paternal ancestral property because my father is now the sole owner being the only son. 

All I want to clarify is that do I have any concrete claims? Or as they say, my father being the only son owns everything and can dispose as he pleases.

Daughters are coparceners by birth in their own way from the date of enforcement of 2005 amendment.

1. Section 6 of HS Act (2005) says that daughter by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son;

2. Parliament in order to remove discrimination on the basis of the gender brought amendment to the Hindu succession act in 2005. The object of the act will fail if they are held not coparceners and are deprived of their coparcenary share.

3. Daughter can challenge the alienation made after December 2004. It means that though she is coparcener from date of enforcement of 2005 amendment but her right is restricted only to the available property and not to the sold property or partitioned property, because third party rights are created so their rights will be effected so the provision is included to save them. When daughters are seeking partition they will not be allotted share in alienated properties or partitioned properties.

4. The object of the central act is to give right to married daughters and give them equal rights on par with unmarried rights given in some states including Karnataka. It was also apt to say that here that coparcenary to be retained with daughters without them it is injustice to them. Coparcenary is body of persons who have got birth right in the ancestral property.

5.  Unmarried daughters are made coparceners by three southern states Andhra in 1985, Tamil Nadu in 1989, Karnataka in 1994 and also by Maharashtra. If the interpretation as made in Prakash Vs Phulavati is accepted they will be dislodged. The object of the central act is not to dislodge the rights given to them. But to extend it to married daughters also.

5.  If it is said that daughters have to wait for death of their father then daughters are not coparceners by birth and they are only successors to their father's property. Then there is no coparcenary at all. It is death to the coparcenary and this is not the intention of the parliament.

6.  Coparcenary is a body of male who are sharers by birth. Unmarried daughters are also coparceners by birth after 1985 in Andhra Pradesh, after 1989 in Tamilnadu and after 1994 in Karnataka and in whole India after 2005 all daughters married or unmarried are coparceners.

7.  Coparcener *daughter* can challenge the alienation made by father or by Karta after 2004 December 26 means they can file suit for partition immediately whether the father dead or alive.

8.  If there is coparcenary it is both son and daughter have equal rights.

Be sure that proeprty is ancestral in which you want to stake claim...............

Has your own senior local counsel of unshakable repute and integrity specializing in  revenue/property/civil matters affiorned after examining all property docs and inputs opined that property is ancestral?

Apparently................... Apparently the proeprty is not ancestral .......................until or unless self acquired property is thrown in amcestral pool.....

Daughter has NO forced share in self acquired property of father...............during life time of father....

Your father is alive!

Thank you for taking time and helping me.

It has to be transferred through four generations to be considered ancestral, right? My great grandfather acquired say about 30% of the property and my grandfather added the rest 70%, 0 contribution from my father, 0 from my brothers. 

I agree that while my father is alive, it is an illogical way to ask for my share, however, my 3 brothers and sister selling off the property with my father's approval. Is it immoral now to request my share, then, even if the other 4 of his children can keep taking their share and isolate me?

Daughter has NO forced share in self acquired property of father...............during life time of father....
 

Please help me understand. My father is the only child of my grandparents. When they passed away without a will, it automaticlaly became my father's property. Is this inherited property still considered as ancestral or has become my father's self acquired property?

Thank you for your help so far.