S.6 of the HSAA 2005, states

- A daughter by birht become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son.

- have the same rights

-have the same liabilities

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 [deleted].

(5) Nothing contained in this section shall apply to a partition which has been effected before the 20th day of december 2004.

Therefore, the three sisters does not have right over the property as per the amended act.

If the property left behind by your grandfather was his self acquired property, the three sisters has an equal share as that of the three brothers.

However, if this property was ancestral in nature, they(sisters) have no share.

All the 3 sisters has the right to share in the property.

However based on the facts explained by you there are numerous case where in the Honourable High Courts have denied the share to the female members of the family, Please consult a Lawyer with full facts and the documentary evidences for better clarification.

Hello,

In 2005, the Supreme Court had passed a landmark amendment to The Hindu Succession Act of 1956, granting daughters the right to inherit ancestral property along with their male relatives.

This has a small clause attached to it which says that if the father died before 2005 then the daughters will not have nay claim. Meaning thereupon that it was a prospective act and not a retrospective one.

Regards

As per the Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005, every daughter, whether married or not, is considered a member of her father’s HUF and can even be appointed as ‘karta’ of his HUF property.

The amendment now grants daughters the same rights, duties, liabilities and disabilities that were earlier limited to sons only.

However, a daughter can avail of the benefits granted by the amendment only if her father passed away after September 9, 2005. Also, the daughter is eligible to be a co-sharer only if the father and the daughter were alive on September 9, 2005. Kindly verify the dates as per your case.

On grand father demise his 3 sons and 3 daughters have equal share in land

It is not ancestral property

Property which has remained undivided for four generations is ancestral property

Now, again a recent judgment came that if father died before 2005 then girls won’t be having any right in the anscestral property.

1) whether the land is agricultural land and its ancestoral inherited property.

2) Than all children has share in the land. There are few questions to be answered from your side.

3) when were all sisters marriage took place before or after death of grandfather.

4) once we come to know the when was marriage solemnised than we can provide you how much share ratio they have in the property and how much to be distribute it.

5) For details do set a consultation call with me.

Actually while selling the property your father would have taken NOC from the sister.

Now as the case is the sisters can claim their shares in the property

1. Your father's sisters do not have to fall back on 2005 amendment to HSA to claim their share. 2005 amendment is applicable to only ancestral property.

2. If the properties in question were the self acquired or separate properties of your grandfather then his daughters succeeded thereto along with their brothers on the intestate demise of their father. The share of daughters is at par with that of sons.

3. Your father's sisters can file a suit for partition to cull out their share in the properties.

Your paternal aunts are the children of your grandfather hence they become his legal heirs or successors in interest on surviving his death and your grandfather is reported to have died intestate i.e., without making any arrangement to his properties.

Thus the properties left behind by your grandfather shall devolve equally on all his legal heirs which includes your paternal aunts.

Therefore the sale of property by your father and his brothers excluding your paternal aunts is illegal and not binding on them

Therefore their claim for their share in the sale proceeds or in the property is legally valid and justified.

Your father has done a good thing to settle the amount to them to avoid legal battles in court.

After death of grand father all his child had equal share in the self acquired land i.e. 1/6 each.

Was it intestate succession or WILL etc.

Amendment of 2005 has nothing to do with it.