• Right of daughters on ancestral property

Sir,
We have ancestor property and the same has been divided among my father, his brothers and their sons. The partition deed is registered in 1975. Now their daughters are also demanding share in the property. Daughters were born before 1956. Are they eligible for equal share.
 V G raju
Asked 2 years ago in Property Law from bengaluru, Karnataka
1. Who is the original purchaser of the property? On what basis you have termed the property as ''ancestral"?

2. In 1976 the daughters had no share in the ancestral property. The Hindu Law of Succession was amended in the year 1990 by the Karnataka Legislature to give an equal share to the daughters in the ancestral property. 

3. Since the partition took place in 1975 the daughters cannot now claim a share in the ancestral property. The partition cannot be reopened now.
Ashish Davessar
Advocate, Jaipur
18190 Answers
449 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Hi, daughters are born before 1956 and their  marriage was after 1956 and partition took place in 1975 and so daughters have share in the property.
Pradeep Bharathipura
Advocate, Bangalore
4105 Answers
133 Consultations
4.3 on 5.0
Hello,

1)The amendment to the Hindu Succession Act giving daughters equal rights to ancestral property is applicable even for girls born before the law was changed in 2005, the Bombay High Court has said.
"Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act of 2005 is retroactive (taking effect from a date in the past) in operation," a full bench stated on Thursday. "In other words, the provisions of the amended section 6(3) do not and cannot impinge upon or curtail or restrict the rights of daughters born prior to 9 September 2005," the judges said.

2)A division bench had opined that the amendment applied to daughters born on or after September 9, 2005. As regards daughters born before 9 September 2005, the judges held that they would get rights in the property upon the death of their father-coparcener (head of a joint family) on or after September 9, 2005.

3) But a single judge disagreed with the view of the division bench and stated that the amendment was retrospective in operation, that it was applicable from June 17, 1956, the date on which the Hindu Succession Act came into force. It would apply to all daughters of a coparcener who are born either before or after September 9, 2005 as well as daughters born before or after June 17, 1956.

4) Therefore the daughters are eligible for equal rights in the property as per the amendment to the Hindu Succession Act 1956.
S J Mathew
Advocate, Mumbai
1954 Answers
65 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Hi,
The daughters has no right or cannot claim now as it was already partitioned in 1975 through a registered deed, and their status of right and claim is not maintainable now.
at present the law is that ,The Hindu succession act gives a provision for equal share for daughters, the amendment act 2005 ensure the property right of married as well as unmarried daughters.(pushpalatha nv v/s v padma, 2010 karnataka high court)
In kerala in 1976 , the recommendation s of the Rau Committee , as per the Law Committee set up , - abolished the right of birth under the Mitakshara as well as the Marumakattayam law. 

In Andhra Pradesh Legislature conferred the right by birth on daughters who are unmarried on the date when the Act came into force. This approach, instead of abolishing the right by birth, strengthens it, while broadly removing the gender discrimination inherent in Mitakshara coparcenary. 

The States of Tamil Nadu (1989), Maharashtra (1994) and Karnataka (1994) followed the Andhra model.
the amendment in 2005 has made landmark changes in The hindu succession act.
Thresiamma G. Mathew
Advocate, Mumbai
1316 Answers
85 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
1) please clarify on what basis you say property is ancestral ? who was the purchaser of property? 

2)once partition deed has been made duly stamped and registered it ceases to be ancestral property . 

3) the daughters have no rights nor claim as partition has already been affected
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
23370 Answers
1224 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
A. In case, property nature is ancestral, daughters have equal share over the property, even though the partition deed registered in the year 1975.

B. As per the amendment of Hindu Succession Act, 2005, daughters become a coparcener and they are eligible to get equal right by birth. It is unequivocally clinched by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and Mumbai High Court.

C. The word " Right by birth" shall be construed wide interpretation and in Karnataka, innumerable cases have been decided by giving retrospection effect. In the meantime, the committee has been formed for this purpose and there is a suggestion, retrospective operation shall not permit and the word Partition shall be included oral partition also.
B.T. Ravi
Advocate, Bangalore
736 Answers
31 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
1. The property was partitioned in the year 1975 when the daughters were adult since they were born before 1956,

2. They have no right to claim any share in the property after the lapse of 40 years.
Krishna Kishore Ganguly
Advocate, Kolkata
12143 Answers
233 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
daughter can't claim her right in the ancestral property which  has been partitioned before september 2005. before this amendment, daughter could not form coparcenary with the male members of the family so daughters are not entitled to claim her share in ancestral property. now daughters are included in the coparcenary so their right in ancestral property is now accrued. in your case daughters are not the part of coparcenary so they can't claim their share in ancestral property.
Shivendra Pratap Singh
Advocate, Lucknow
2771 Answers
41 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0

Ask a Lawyer

Get legal answers from top-rated lawyers in 1 hour. It's quick, easy, and anonymous!
Ask a Lawyer

Property Lawyers

T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
14151 Answers
127 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
23370 Answers
1224 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Ashish Davessar
Advocate, Jaipur
18190 Answers
449 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Krishna Kishore Ganguly
Advocate, Kolkata
12143 Answers
233 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Devajyoti Barman
Advocate, Kolkata
5248 Answers
54 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
Atulay Nehra
Advocate, Noida
444 Answers
15 Consultations
4.7 on 5.0
Shivendra Pratap Singh
Advocate, Lucknow
2771 Answers
41 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
Rajgopalan Sripathi
Advocate, Hyderabad
873 Answers
43 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Ajay N S
Advocate, Ernakulam
1916 Answers
19 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
S J Mathew
Advocate, Mumbai
1954 Answers
65 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0