The Hindu Succession(A) Act 2005

Are there any chances that daughters born in HUF before 17/06/1956 will also get the share in the undivided property?

Yes Date of birth of any female makes no differences  Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect or invalidate any disposition or alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of property which had taken place before the 20th day of December, 2004.

Above said means if the partition of the property had been taken place before 20 dec 2004 only then she can not claim.

They have the right to fight for the cases pending before the court for partition.

Thanks for the reply sir. What about my first question sir?  Is the order passed Houn'ble Hight Court is still valid to fight a case with respect Female rights?

Thanks for the reply Madam, there is a case pending about the same which is filed in 2007 but according to the High court order DOB is considerable. What if the female DOB is earlier than 1956?

Deepu I didn't gone through the case you are talking about but surely you are missing something

This is the order passed by H'ble High Court Karnataka on 19/03/2010 by Justices N. Kumar and Venugopal Gowda.

THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT OF 1956 WAS AMENDED WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT, CONFERRING EQUAL RIGHTS IN THE HUF/ANCESTRAL PROPERTIES THAT OF A SON, IF IT HAD NOT BEEN PARTITIONED BEFORE 20-12-2004. WITH A VIEW OF EMPOWERING HINDU WOMEN, THE PARLIAMENT PASSED THIS AMENDMENT AND SUBSTITUTED SECTION 6 OF THE ACT, WITH A NEW CLAUSE, THUS DECLARING THE DAUGHTER OF A COPARCENAR EQUAL TO A SON UNDER MITHAKSHARA LAW.

HINDU SUCCESSION (AMENDMENT) ACT 2005

THE HINDU SUCCESSION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2005 NO. 39 OF 2005

[5th September, 2005.]

An Act further to amend the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. BE it enacted by Parliament in the Fifty-sixth Year of the Republic of India as follows:-

1. Short title and commencement.-(1) This Act may be called the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.

(2) It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint.

2. Amendment of section 4.-In section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), sub-section (2) shall be omitted.

3. Substitution of new section for section 6.-For section 6 of the principal Act, the following section shall be substituted, namely:-

‘6. Devolution of interest in coparcenary property.-(1) On and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, in a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener shall,- (a) by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son; (b) have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son; (c) be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenary property as that of a son, and any reference to a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to include a reference to a daughter of a coparcener: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect or invalidate any disposition or alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of property which had taken place before the 20th day of December, 2004.

(2) Any property to which a female Hindu becomes entitled by virtue of sub-section

(1) shall be held by her with the incidents of coparcenary ownership and shall be regarded, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, or any other law for the time being in force, as property capable of being disposed of by her by testamentary disposition.

(3) Where a Hindu dies after the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, his interest in the property of a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be, under this Act and not by survivorship, and the coparcenary property shall be deemed to have been divided as if a partition had taken place and,- (a) the daughter is allotted the same share as is allotted to a son; (b) the share of the pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter, as they would have got had they been alive at the time of partition, shall be allotted to the surviving child of such pre-deceased son or of such pre-deceased daughter; and (c) the share of the pre-deceased child of a pre-deceased son or of a pre-deceased daughter, as such child would have got had he or she been alive at the time of the partition, shall be allotted to the child of such pre-deceased child of the pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter, as the case may be. Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-section, the interest of a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition of the property had taken place immediately before his death, irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not.

(4) After the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, no court shall recognise any right to proceed against a son, grandson or great-grandson for the recovery of any debt due from his father, grandfather or great-grandfather solely on the ground of the pious obligation under the Hindu law, of such son, grandson or great-grandson to discharge any such debt: Provided that in the case of any debt contracted before the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect- (a) the right of any creditor to proceed against the son, grandson or great-grandson, as the case may be; or (b) any alienation made in respect of or in satisfaction of, any such debt, and any such right or alienation shall be enforceable under the rule of pious obligation in the same manner and to the same extent as it would have been enforceable as if the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 had not been enacted. Explanation.-For the purposes of clause (a), the expression “son”, “grandson” or “great-grandson” shall be deemed to refer to the son, grandson or great-grandson, as the case may be, who was born or adopted prior to the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.

(5) Nothing contained in this section shall apply to a partition, which has been effected before the 20th day of December, 2004. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section “partition” means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court.’.

4. Omission of section 23.-Section 23 of the principal Act shall be omitted.

5. Omission of section 24.-Section 24 of the principal Act shall be omitted.

6. Amendment of section 30.-In section 30 of the principal Act, for the words “disposed of by him”, the words “disposed of by him or by her” shall be substituted.

7. Amendment of Schedule.-In the Schedule to the principal Act, under the sub-heading “Class 1″, after the words “widow of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son”, the words “son of a pre-deceased daughter of a pre-deceased daughter; daughter of a pre-deceased daughter of a pre-deceased daughter; daughter of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased daughter; daughter of a pre-deceased daughter of a pre-deceased son” shall be added. —- T. K. VISWANATHAN, Secy. to the Govt. of India. {}

Kindly answer my doubt whether Females born before 17/06/1956 can claim the share in the undivided HUF property?

You had answer yourself dear

 This is the order passed by H'ble High Court Karnataka on 19/03/2010 by Justices N. Kumar and Venugopal Gowda.

THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT OF 1956 WAS AMENDED WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT, CONFERRING EQUAL RIGHTS IN THE HUF/ANCESTRAL PROPERTIES THAT OF A SON, IF IT HAD NOT BEEN PARTITIONED BEFORE 20-12-2004. WITH A VIEW OF EMPOWERING HINDU WOMEN, THE PARLIAMENT PASSED THIS AMENDMENT AND SUBSTITUTED SECTION 6 OF THE ACT, WITH A NEW CLAUSE, THUS DECLARING THE DAUGHTER OF A COPARCENAR EQUAL TO A SON UNDER MITHAKSHARA LAW.

where you find that the Hon High Court mentioned age limit??????????

(2) It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint.

The only one thing should be taken into consider , " the partition took placed before 20-12-2004 or not"

My father Bought a property in New Delhi in the year 1950. There was no HUF . In 1953 he formed an HUF without any proper method aand later threw the property in HUF , which was converted after lot of resistence of the concerned Deptt. No HUF funds were used .He died in Aug 2000 ..Before his death he had made a will and had handed over the property to his two sons . He clearly wrote in the will that the property was self acquired and he had bought it from his personal funds . He willed the property to his two sons . Now Hindu succession act came in 2005 effective from Dec 2004 . We have given the will for probate and is about to be probated . What is the status of the property . Do the daughter also have a right in the property now . In 1953 he made a HUF which clearly stated that the daughters cease to be the members once they are married . Please throw some light in the said context Thanks

A' mitkshara joint hindu family'belong to Delhi, consist of father F, wife W, two sonS1 and S2 and three daughter D1,D2,D3 in 2006 F, dies leaving joint family property of worth42 lakhs. How would you divide the property left by F, among

W, S1, S2, D1, D2 and D3. Find the share of each in the property. Discuss the

provisions of law involved in the above said problem.

Would your answer be different if the family was domiciled in Chennai?

Hi,

Regarding Hindu Succession act amendment 2005 I had a few questions:

My father died in July 2005 post which my brother acquired our ancestral property (50 acres of land and a house).On demanding my share he refuses to talk to me about it.

I wanted to know as per the amendment 2005 will get a share in the ancestral property if

1.My father has died before 2005?

2.I was born in 1953?

3.I was married around 1976?

Thanks much,

Pooja

You are entitled for a share that is same as your brother.

what happens if there is unregisterd partition among brothers and sister is not a signatory body for the unregisterd partition deed and there is no presumption of joint family as everybody enjoying their share in the said partition deed. and the women (sister of brothers) is born before 1956. can she still chalenge the unregisterd partition deed in high court as in the lower court the case is decreed in favour of the women as equal share. 

But in the partition deed one property in the name of my grand father has fallen to the share of my father and my father is in position so far and in the revenue records it is still in my grand fathers name it was not yet transferd to my father.

so, my father has appealed in the high court that women born before 1956 has no rights to claim and after the death of grand father all brothers have shared the property and nothing to be shared. 

will the case be in the favour of my fatther .

Please respected advisors can you give clarity on this case........

My father Bought a property in New Delhi in the year 1950. There was no HUF  then . In 1953 he formed an HUF without any proper method and wrote an agreement that the daughters will cease to be members after their marriage . He also use to give them some Monetary benefits after their marriage and got them signed from them . In 1962 r threw the property in HUF , which was converted after lot of resistence of the concerned Deptt. No HUF funds were used .He died in Aug 2000 ..Before his death he had made a will and had handed over the property to his two sons . He clearly wrote in the will that the property was self acquired and he had bought it from his personal funds . He willed the property to his two sons . Now Hindu succession act came in 2005 effective from Dec 2004 . We have given the will for probate and is about to be probated . What is the status of the property . Do the daughter also have a right in the property now . In 1953 he made a HUF which clearly stated that the daughters cease to be the members once they are married . Please throw some light in the said context Thanks