The HSA amendment 2005 uses the word liability. This raises the question whether this
word ‘LIABILITY’ includes duties and responsibilities also and I feel it should;
otherwise it falls short of the basic purpose, intent and spirit of the part (c). As I feel that the liability differs from the duties and responsibilities. The question gathers strength because very often the duties and responsibilities attached or linked with the properties are more vital and important than liability. If the liability does not include duties and responsibility than this word ‘liability’ carries a very narrow and weak meaning as a balancing factor purported to have been included in the amendment; and it perhaps defeats the very purpose of maintaining a balance. The liability I feel, refers to the financial element of the matter, whereas the duties and responsibilities may refer to every type of care with sincerity, respect and dedication. In property matters the situations differ from case to case and at times may demand every and in some cases special care of the old and dependent parents. If the liability, duties and responsibility devolves upon a one single legal heir of the property and all other legal heirs are completely free from the same and enjoying their life in their own way; sometimes indulging in making/building properties in abundance elsewhere by living away from the place of duties, responsibilities and liability. Then in such a case;
What would the position of their legal rights (other legal heirs) with respect to the ancestral property? As in such cases they do not fulfil the conditions laid down in part (C) stated above.
Should this unfulfilled condition be taken as disqualification of their rights to some extent, and if so, to what extent?
Although the part (c) refers to the rights of the daughters; but, if sometimes a son or the male heir is also not fulfilling this condition (and non-fulfilment applies more to him) then in that case the daughter can raise the issue that on of the son/male legal heirs is also not fully entitled to the share.
The issue in totality should be seen in the context that in most of the Hindu families in India the parents do not live with the daughters and the responsibilities with respect to parents lie with sons .
