Dears,
I am son of a deceased coparcener (Mar 2020) wherein our properties are held by deceased grandfather (deceased in 1989) as ancestral properties. My grandfather had 8 LHs including his wife (my grandmother), 4 sons and 3 daughters. My father had filed suit for partition and declaration suit in 2002 (173/2002 in Sangli civil and criminal court, Maharashtra) and since then still pending. In that suit, my father had considered daughters rights in accordance with the then prevailing 1956 Hindu succession act.
Out of 3 properties (A,B and C), 1 property, let’s say ‘C’ was in third party possession and my grandfather was given rights to take property in question in his possession. In that appeal (first appeal 723/1978), other legal heirs had made fraud on the basis of “Kulmukhtyarpatra” (k.patra) which was not signed by my father and put my father’s name into respondents without giving any notice to my Father (even though he was LH). My father had fear that by signing on this k.patra, his right would be used by other LHs. By proceeding the suit without considering the fundamental right of a male coparcener, my Father, h'able high court pleased to give decree in favor of only 7 other LH (which were plaintiff in that suit) excluding my father due only that my father's name was in respondent list in the last (Regular Darkhast 26/1999). Being aggrieved, my father had filed few writ petitions (3616/2015) and to that effect also my father was not given any right to take possession of that property along with 7 others (Regular Darkhast 39/2012), only said that 7 other LH had to take possession of the property, and they must not deal with that property until our partition suit gets decide. Then my father again filed appeal in Supreme court challenging this decree, however h'able Supreme court pleased to keep the same decree by high court passed in 2015 neglecting my Father’s right. Now, 7 other LHs has obtained possession of that property ‘C’ in Mar, 2019 by above decree and they are enjoying every benefit including surviving LH (including all daughters).
Thereafter my Father filed Contempt of Court in 2019 and still pending, meanwhile due to all these headache, my Father passed away in Mar 2020.
In another related past event, by fraud, other LH had farmed “Will” of my grandmother taking her thumb and registering document in sub-registrar office in Sangli. In that, reliance was made on oral partition which we have strongly objected and we were never made any oral partition, my Father who was in possession of certain property in A which was not front facing on road and other LHs always aimed that my Father remains behind and all shop premises be given to all daughters and other heirs.
The C.M.A. 83/2008 is still pending for getting Letter of Administration to other LHs excluding my Father on the basis of oral partition
There are several other pending suits for possession and rent from tenants, interim applications, wherein my Father has not been given any possession or share till date by the trial courts in Sangli.
How this can be taken – I can furnish further details of the suits, writ petitions and subsequent decrees with greater complexity.
Following question of law arise in my view –
- Why o’ble high court and Supreme court have denied my Father’s right to get possession of suit property along with other LHs, which is a fundamental right as a coparcener?
- With the amendments in laws, daughter’s have equal rights as that of a son, whether supreme court have considered that daughters are now getting triple benefit as against single reduced benefit to sons? Is this not injustice to male coparcerners?
(triple benefit is to daughters with all marriage expenses done by her Father or brothers, gold and jewelry, the right they obtain after marriage in her husband’s property and now equal right given to them in their Father’s property.)
- On what basis, Supreme court arrived at decision that Son is not Son after he gets married? There is no ground on this wording as if we consider Hindu families, most of Son’s have taken due care of their parents after their marriage. I am not of the opinion that this is true.
- On what basis, Supreme court arrived at decision that daughter is loving daughter throughout her life after getting married?
How many daughters even get time to look after their parents on day-to-day basis, Is this really possible? If this doesn’t fit in law, then court must not question if Son is not getting time to look after their parents and parents do suffer in front of their child (Son). Most of the daughters do not raise questions for their coparcener rights and they simply give up for their brothers as they already had got their sufficient share in terms of money, dowry, gold and jewelry.
In my view, questions 3 & 4 arise as one of the factor behind such statements is emotional thought overriding existing system of rights of coparceners. Further this needs to be investigated in greater depth and varied scope and must be based on situation.
My mother is classic example of a Hindu daughter wherein she has left her share in her Father’s property, and now she is been deprived of her right due to her husband’s share has reduced.
- What is the importance of fixing date of 9.9.2005?
My Father instituted partition suit in 2002 and just waiting for justice for almost 18 yrs. In India, why one has to wait for such a long time to get justice and then one may realize that it is not as per desired results. In my view, in all cases where partition suit was filed before this cutoff date, it must be held by the courts that partition happened just before this date and treated accordingly even though such suits are still pending.
- Common man still doesn’t understand how law system works. In my view, one subject has to be included in school or college at appropriate stage so that people are aware of how to deal with conflicting situations and understand their fundamental rights. Why courts are not giving due emphasis on this aspect?
What is the implication of above story as far as legal aspect is concerned (I hope I have not mixed up many different angles, although this story is still further complex)
Thanks.
