Mr. A died in year 1958 in Rajasthan leaving behind 3 sons & 2 Daughters without any document. S1, S2, S3 (Sons) got their agriculture property on their own name without having name of D1 & D2 (daughters) without partition. In 1972, S1 died and on the name of S1, his son's name was inserted. In 1995 Son of S1 by stating he got partition with his uncles and his father's 1/3 share is his share and for the benefit of family he sold the 1/3rd share to Builder & a supporting clarification deed executed by wife of S1 in favour of Builder in regard to 'No objection'. The construction started in year 2006 and Almost 50% land is developed and buildings constructed upto year 2012. Now in year 2012, one daughter of S1 filed a suit claiming her share stating it as her ancestral land, in which she is claiming 1/6 share in the whole land of Mr. A. Is her share is genuine? in respect of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005? Builder is a Bonafide purchaser. What are the remedies?
First answer received in 10 minutes.
Lawyers are available now to answer your questions.
1) on demise of A his 3 sons and daughters had equal share i land
2)it is surprising that land was transferred in name of sons without any relinquishment deed or gift deed being executed by daughters
3) S1 had on e fifth share in land
4) on his demise his wife , his sons and daughters have equal share in land
5) daughter is entitled to file suit for partition to claim her share in land
6) builder should settle with the daughter
As per Hindu Succession Amendment Act 2005- 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. (Here is is clear that any any disposition or alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of property which had taken place before the 20th day of December, 2004 are safe...) isn't? as Daughters of Mr. A has not claimed yet and daughters of S1 is claiming in 2012 which is after the cutoff date i.e. 20.12.2004 of HSA Amendment 2005. Please put light on the matter. Thanks
1) it is not ancestral property
2) property which has remained undivided for 4 generations would be ancestral property
3) in the present case it is grand father A self acquired property
4) grand daughter would have share in property of her father S! on his demise
5) daughters of A can always sue to claim their share in A property
6) if it was ancestral property and father died before 2005 daughter would not have share in ancestral property
Firstly thanks Ajay Ji for such a good and interesting conversation with you. As the 1/3rd property which comes in the hand of son of S1 is ancestral property in all the terms. Citation: “The share which a coparcener obtains on partition of ancestral property is ancestral property as regards his male issue. They take an interest in it by birth, whether they are in existence at the time of partition or are born subsequently. Such share, however, is ancestral property only as regards his male issue. As regards other relations, it is separate property, and if the coparcener dies without leaving male issue, it passes to his heirs by succession.” [Smt. Dipo vs Wassan Singh & Others, 1983 AIR 846, 1983 SCR (3) 20]. Note: For other relations other than son, its not an ancestral property but Son of S1 is a male member and got ancestral property in his hands. He, as a Karta of family can sell the said 1/3rd share (Please ignore Daughters of A for a while) ? He had right to do so ? He was elder than claiming daughter at the time of sale but both were adult.
1) thanks for your appreciation
2) the issue involved is whether it is ancestral property or not
3) property inherited by son S1 on his father demise( A )would not be ancestral property
4) on S1 demise sons and daughters have equal share in property
5) the citation given by you is applicable only to ancestral properties
Sir, Please Ignore Daughters of A for a while... A died intestate. Three sons (S1, S2, S3) were the joint owners in the land from 1958 to 1972. There business or working was also as a Joint Family. S1 Died in 1972, name of son of S1 came on behalf. From [deleted] they all were joint owners of the land. It was Joint Family Property. Then in 1995 they got partition in the land as 1/3 share each. Then further for the benefit of family son of S1 sold the 1/3 share. Son of S1 had the sold right to sold his joint family property as a HUF of this property? will it help? How we can get victory in the case? plz suggest .... or guide. I don't want to settle with daughters.
litigation is long drawn process and goes on for years at an end
2) if the case goes on for years and chances of success are bleak it is always better to settle
3) if A had inherited property from his fore fathers you can claim it is ancestral property
4) you can then take the plea that daughter of S1 would not have shar in proeprty as her father died before 2005 . further if partition had taken place before 2005 daughter would not have share in ancestral property