Even if the daughter had died before the amendment, she would be the rightful claimant to the property of her father in a Hindu Undivided Family. In this specific case, the children of the daughter would be the entitled to the property.
Under the old law of Hindu succession, daughters did not have rights in the family property of their fathers, and could only inherit property from their husbands’ side. These gender-discriminatory rules continued into the Hindu Succession Act 1956, which codified the Hindu personal law on inheritance.
Prior to 2005, there were several amendments to the Hindu Succession Act to give inheritance rights to women, but even after these, daughters did not have equal rights as sons.
The 2005 amendment finally brought daughters at par with sons, by holding that the daughter of a coparcener (ie, someone who has a right to ancestral property), would become a coparcener in her own right, just like a son, and have the same rights in the ancestral property of an HUF as a son.
Two other gender-discriminatory aspects of Hindu inheritance law were also repealed by the 2005 amendment:
- Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, which prevented female heirs from asking for partition of the ancestral property unless the male heirs had agreed to do so – now they can also get a partition done even if the other heirs don’t want it.
- Section 24 of the Hindu Succession Act, which stopped a widow from inheriting her husband’s property if she remarried.
For any further queries ask the forum and connect