Daughter right on ancestral property- married before 1980

Dear Jay.

basically, the share in the property for female depends basing on several facts but not only date of marriage.

Even if a lady gets married in 1960's and the family have not partitioned their proprties till 2012 then that lady have right over the properties to be shared.

If you are able to prove that the partition of properties were already happened before 1980 then you need not her any share or otherwise you have to give her equal 50% share in the property of your grand parents.

Getting confused whether she will get 50 % right or not. Let me know any other info is needed to have a more focus.

even im in same question...my grandfather has a house in his name..he died witout writing any will..my grand father has 3 childs _ 1 son (my dad), 2 daughtera(my aunts)...both married before 1980..nw dey are asking for share in dat house?are dey eligible to ask? dey dnt have legal documents regarding dat house..only we have all documents..so can dey file case in court witout documents? we r living in dat house for 35yrs, so we will get any favourable judgement?  thanks in advance

my grandfather had received an ancestral property from my great-grandfather.

My grandfather executed a will in 1991 by transferring all the property to my father and decased in 1994.

Questions:

1. Is the will so excuted can be challenged on the point of ancestral property?

2. Can my aunt (father's sister) can claim a share in the property right now?

3. Please refer the relevant law also.

My wife has her grandfather's unpartitioned ancestral property which she shares with her two married sisters who are settled abroad and have taken-up citizenship of respective countries; one of them continues to be Hindu but another is married to a christian person.  All these three sisters have grand children.  For these minor grand-children, the property is of their great great grandfather.  Since these three sisters have also one brother and these sisters have become entitled to have their share after  Amendment taken place in the year 2005 in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 

My wife's grandfather had five sons, which included my wife's father.  Out of  four  uncles, two died unmarried after 50 years of age each leaving behind a Will in respect of their unpartitioned share in favour of their other brothers' sons.  Claims are being made by these sons on the basis of these two WIlls, which are unregistered and notorized respectively, in addition to their father's share in the property.

In 2013-14, my wife has asked them to probate these Wills and thereafter to file a suit for partition by sale.  None of them are agreeable to do so and want to handover the property to a builder for construction of new flats (by domolishing existing house) and provide few to them and those who do not wish to have a flat by paying  additional cost should accept market value of their share. They do not want to go to the Court for any purpose and my wife being house wife has no funds to initiate legal position besides to initiate action by going to another State where the property is located.

Kindly give your legal advice parawise and oblige.

Since the property is ancestral, then the division depend upon date of death of your grandfather.

If he died before 20-12-2004, then half of property will remain in your father's favour and half would be in favour of your grand father. Since, he is deceased before 20-12-04 (without any will), his half share would be divided in to two equal parts, one of your father and other for your aunt. Hence, total share of your father would be 75% and your aunt is 25%. (If there is a will of your GF, then half portion will be deivided accordingly) 

If he died after 20-12-04, then there are there shares. 1/3 each for Your GF, father and aunt. If your GF deceased without any will, his 1/3 will be divided two half, each for your father &  aunt. i.e. 1/2 portion of land for each. Other wise his Will be followed accordingly for his 1/3 portion.

dear all,

my grandfather and grandmother are expired.they have 3 child. 

1son (my father), 1 son (uncle). 1 daughter (aunt).

my aunt is married and she has 1 daughter. she left her husband around 30years ago and living with us in a same flat with her daughter. my uncle is unmarried.

she is big trouble for us. creating problems all the time. she doesnt bare any expendature at home.

now i got married for a year. we do not want to live with the continuos problem of my aunt and her daughter. we asked her to take her share of property (1/3rd).

but she is refusing to go with her share. she wanted to live here only.

we found it will be big problem in future as we have to look her and may be her daughter also. so we want to settle this matter.

is there any legal way that 'she has to go with her property share'? or she can live with us as long as she want?

can we ask her leagal force to go with her share? (we are ready to pay her share)

please advice.

thank you

Read this link https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/law-on-equal-right-for-daughters-in-ancestral-properties-is-prospective/article7798323.ece 

Details below

n a verdict that can have a cascading effect on matters related to partition of ancestral properties with regard to equal right for daughters, the Supreme Court has declared that the coparcener rights are applicable to “living daughters of living coparceners as on September 9, 2005, irrespective of when such daughters are born.”

The apex court was dealing with various judgments of different High Courts, including from the Karnataka High Court, differing in their views on the applicability of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.

The amendments of 2005 gave equal right to daughters in coparcener properties by removing the discrimination that existed in the original enactment, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 against Hindu women on rights over ancestral properties.

Also, the Supreme Court declared that the provisions of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, are applicable “prospectively” [on and from September 9, 2005, when the Act came into force], and not with “retrospective” effect as held by some High Courts in the country.

A Bench comprising Justice Anil R Dave and Justice A.K. Goel, in its October 16, 2015, interpreted the succession law while setting aside the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case Prakash Vs Phulavati of 2010.

The Karnataka High Court had held that daughters would be entitled to equal share even if father had died prior to September 9, 2005, when litigations over partition were pending in courts.

The text of the 2005 amendment, the apex court said, itself clearly provides that the right conferred on a ‘daughter of a coparcener’ is ‘on and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.”

“In view of plain language of the statute, there is no scope for a different interpretation than the one suggested by the text of the amendment. An amendment of a substantive provision is always prospective unless either expressly or by necessary intendment it is retrospective,” the Supreme Court said.

In the present amendment Act of 2005, the apex court said, “There is neither any express provision for giving retrospective effect to the amended provision nor necessary intendment to that effect.”

“We are unable to find any reason to hold that birth of the daughter after the amendment was a necessary condition for its applicability. All that is required is that daughter should be alive and her father should also be alive on the date of amendment,” the apex court said.

There would have been no wrong if SC had said that the Amendment is retrospective.  Since that would put daughters rights straight over properties.  Now there is discrimination between sons and daughters.

This discrimination is not acceptable in a social sense.  It is biased towards men.