Shobhit 20 May 2017

Rights on grand father's property

My grandfather (mother's father) had 8 children (4 sons and 4 daughters) and he died in 1955 intestate. He had built a residential house in 1940s out of his own investment and it is still in his name. Only 2 sons and 1 daughter are alive today while others have passed away including my grandmother. My queries are as follows: 1) Do alive daughter and children of deceased daughters have a right on the property? If yes, what is the share? 2) Does the fact that my grandfather died in 1955 before the Hindu Succession Act 1956 has any bearing on ownership rights of the daughters (or their children)? 3) Does SC ruling on 2005 Amendment act has any impact on this case? 4) In case of eligibility of share of daughters, what is the process of registering the ownership?

Reply Follow

4 Replies

Ms.Usha Kapoor (CEO) 21 May 2017

nOW ONLY ONE DAUGHTERS AND TWO SONS REMAIN. REST ARE CHILDRENOF DECEASED DAYUGHTES AND SONS CHILDREN.aLL OF THEM GET 1./8th TH EACH OF YO0UR MATERNAL GRAND FATHERS PROPERTY. lIVING DAUGHTE GETS And 1/8th share each AND 2 living sons WOULD GET the remaining 1/8th each 3 deceaSED DAUGHTERS AND 2 DECEASED SONSOR T6HEIR LIVING CHILDREN REMAININING 1/8TH.PARTITION IS OPENING NOW IT WOULD Go in ACCORDANCE WITH AMENDED HINDU sUCCESSION aCT 2005

Rama chary Rachakonda (Secunderabad/Telangana state Highcourt practice watsapp no.9989324294 ) 21 May 2017

In a ruling that will restrict the right of women seeking equal share in ancestral property, the Supreme Court has said that the 2005 amendment in Hindu law will not give property rights to a daughter if the father died before the amendment came into force.

The court held that the amended provisions of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, could not have retrospective effect despite it being a social legislation. The court said the father would have had to be alive on September 9, 2005, if the daughter were to become a co-sharer with her male siblings.

Shobhit 21 May 2017

Thanks for your reply. But I am made to understand that 2005 Amendement and subsequent SC ruling on father being alive relate to ancestral property only. Doesn't our property fall under the category of "self-acquired" and thus the said SC ruling not applicable in our case? I understand that the ancestral property needs to be 4 generation old and undivided, which is not the case here. Please clarify if the understanding is correct and thus daughters would have the share.

Martin Sooji (Advocate) 21 May 2017

Originally posted by : Shobhit
	Thanks for your reply. But I am made to understand that 2005 Amendement and subsequent SC ruling on father being alive relate to ancestral property only. Doesn't our property fall under the category of "self-acquired" and thus the said SC ruling not applicable in our case? I understand that the ancestral property needs to be 4 generation old and undivided, which is not the case here. Please clarify if the understanding is correct and thus daughters would have the share.