1. Supreme Court judgment that you have referred to relates to only the 2005 amendment made by the Parliament to Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act. The said amendment covers only the ancestral property, not the self acquired or separate property.

2. If the said property was the self acquired or separate property of father, and he died intestate, then it devolved through intestate succession on all his children equally. The share of every heir is 1/4th.

3. Both daughters are free to file a suit for partition to cull out their 1/4th share in the property and also seek a declaration that that partition deed is illegal.

You have not mentioned whether it is self acquired property or ancestral property of deceased father

2) daughters can file suit to set aside partition deed as they were not given any share

3) judgment of SC deals with ancestral property wherein daughters can claim share if father was alive in 2005

1. the 2005 amendment is prospective and retrospective

2. meaning the daughters get equal rights with sons on and from september 2005 and not before that

3. in your case, in 2003 when partition took place, the daughters were not coparcenors.

4. so they were not required to be included in the partition

5. the partition having already taken place, the ancestral property is no more existing

6. as there was no ancestral property in existence on September 2005, when the amendment which gave equal rights to daughters came into force, the daughters do not become coparcenors

7. consequently the daughters cannot claim any share in ancestral property which was duly partitioned in 2003, by raising any dispute now

Sir first of all kindly clarify some details??

First the nature of the property self acquired or Ancestral??

Parties to the registered partition deed??

See if the property is self acquired by father then the daughter will have the right in the fathers property.

Further both these judgements are related to the Coparcenary property of Hindu family wherein Supreme court has held that the right of daughter firstly if born before 1956 that is enactment of hindu succession act.

See 2005 amendment in Hindu Succession act give daughter equal right in the Coparcenary property.

Daughter already had rights in the self acquired property of father since 1956.

Dear Client,

Daughters always had inheritance right in father`s self acquired property. After 2005 they acquired inheritance right in ancestral property too, which was denied earlier.

Judgement deals with another aspect Daughters Have Equal Rights In Ancestral Property, Even If They Were Born Before Enactment Of Hindu Succession Act 1956.

Daughter along with son is class I heir as per HSA and have equal right i.e. 1/4th each.

Dear Madam,

Daughters can put a case claiming share as per above citation but the only issue is time consuming and delay. Normally the partition suit must be filed within 12 years from the date of cause of action that is date of refusal to give share by other co-sharers. The pro forma prayers are as follows.

======================================================================================

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass an judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants as follows.

a) Directing the defendants to effect partition of all the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds and put the plaintiff in possession of 1/5th share.

b) For grant of costs of the suit and such other relief’s as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit under the circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice and equity.

If the father was reported to have died intestate, then his properties shall automatically devolve equally among all his class I legal heirs.

The sons and daughters besides wife and mother are the class I legal heirs of the male dying intestate to succeed his properties.

The above is the provision of HSA, 1956.

The above provision has not been amended.

The amendment in the year 2005, gives additional rights to the girl child or daughters in the ancestral proeprty. According to this, the daughters have an equal rights along with the sons in the father's share of the ancestral proeprty.

Therefore in your situation the daughters are entitled to a legitimate share in their father's properties if he was reported to have died intestate, at par with their brothers.

Daughter shall not have the right subject to condition that the property is ancestral and partition was open and done before 2005.

Prakash vs. phulwati SC judgement 2005 amendment prospective.

Daughters have no share in ancestral property as father died before 2005

No right to daughter in copaercenry property/joint, if they got married before death of father.

Daughter in law had no right.

The property that was inherited as his own share by the deceased father shall be his own and absolute proeprty and it will devolve equally on his own legal heirs consisting his children, wife and mother.

The proeprty lost its ancestral nature once it was partitioned, hence the daughters are entitled to their legitimate share in their deceased father's properties, provided he is reported to have died intestate.

Thus if the mother and wife of the deceased are not living then the properties shall devolve equally on all his children.

The daughters are entitled to their legitimate share in the proeprty, hence the partition deed is invalid especially if the daughters file a suit claiming partition and separate possession of their respective shares and also seeking the relief of cancellation of the registered partition deed without involving them as parties to the said registered partition deed.

Dear Sir,

My answers as follows:

1. The property in discussion is father's ancestral property (NOT self acquired).

Ans: Then, daughters have a share in the ancestral property. But to get a decree then executing the same is Hercules task

2. Father died on 04/12/2000.

Ans: Now there is no cut of date to claim partition by the daughters.

3. The registered partition deed was made on 23/06/2003.

Ans: No issue, it is insignificant since daughters share was not given.

4. The following persons are made parties in the partition deed :

a) Deceased Father's brother.

b) Deceased father's two sons.

c) Daughter in law of the deceased father.

Ans: The partition deed not have necessary parties.

4. It's a Hindu family.

Ans; yes, ancestral property means in which daughters have share from their birth as per recent SC judgment.

5. Both the daughters are NOT made parties in the partition deed.

Ans: They are necessary parties as such it is invalid document and daughters can re-open the partition.

Now my question is , does the two daughters have rights on father's ancestral property in this situation?

Ans: Definitely they have a share. Please prolong the proceedings in the Court if they file any suit for partition.