It was self acquired property of father
2) daughter has equal share in property
3) daughter or her children can claim share in property and partition deed would be set aside
Daughter claim on property
I bought a piece of land in 2004 in Tamil Nadu from Owner A. Owner A had obtained this property through a family partition executed in 1988 between his brothers after his father (his self-acquired property) died in 1980 without a will. But Owner A's sister was not part of this partition. But in 2015, the children of Owner A's sister have registered a case claiming legal right of their mother over the self-acquired property after the 2005 amendment done to the succession act. Is the daughter (who has died before 2005) entitled to father's (died in 1980) share if both the father and daughter died before 2005? When I bought the property in 2004, the law at that time established Owner A as the absolute owner of the property. But with the change in law, suddenly the legal transaction becomes a disputed transaction. Is this not absurd??? How can a change in law make all legal transactions before the law came into effect as illegal transactions? Please share on your thoughts on what my options are? Thanks a lot for your guidance.
Asked 3 years ago in Property Law
Religion: Hindu
First answer received in 30 minutes.
Lawyers are available now to answer your questions.
6 Answers
You have misinterpreted the law.
The claim made by the legal heirs of deceased daughter demanding their deceased mother's share out of their deceased grandfather's property is very much valid and an existing law.
It has not come into force after the latest amendment giving equal rights to daughters at par with son in the ancestral property.
This is self acquired property of deceased father and upon his intestate death his properties shall devolve equally on all his legal heirs which includes the legal heirs of deceased legal heirs too.
You have purchased without obtaining legal opinion hence you cannot blame law for to ignorance of law in this regard.
The court will decide in favor of the legal heirs of deceased daughter recognizing their rights hence you may better try for compromise settlement if feasible.
- Seller acquired property through partition registered in 1988 in which sister was not allotted her share.
- Property purchased by you in 2004.
- Suit filed by legal heirs of sister in 2015 claiming share in property relying on amendment in 2005.
- Sister died before 2005.
Your question is, can the transaction prior to 2005 be questioned after 2005 in view of amendment of law in 2005.
Answer: Right of daughter to ancestral property after amendment of also granted through survivorship that is, her legal heirs can also claim share after her death.
- But under the amended law, any partition registered prior to 20th December 2004 cannot be reopened. Therefore, suit filed by her legal heirs is not at all maintainable.
- They cannot claim any share in self acquired property as the question suggests that suit is filed over self-acquired property.
If the law operates retrospective then it can happen but generally the effect of legislation is prospective in nature
1. It's not clear in your letter as to, whether you bought this property on or before [deleted] (Twentieth December Two Thousand Four) or after the above date.?.
2. Assuming that you bought and registered the property in your name before the above date detailed above, then you will be safe, for the below mentioned reasons:-
(a). Properties settled through registered Partition Deed/ Sale Deed/Family Settlement Deed, etc.. in the jurisdictional and competent Sub Registrar's Office, shall not be reopened if it has been done prior to [deleted] ( Twentieth December Two Thousand Four).
(b). The daughter has to be alive as on [deleted] ( Ninth September Two Thousand Five) even thouh her father might have died earlier to this date. In the instant case, as per your narration, the daughter died before 2005 and hence based on the above clarification, the children of "A" 's sister are not entitled for any share.
As you say it was the self-acquired property of the owner's father who died intestate, after the death of the owner's father, his estate devolved automatically upon all his legal heirs equally, including the female heirs. The partition made excluding the sister in 1998 is bad in law. The 2005 amendment has no relevance here. Though there is a defect in the title, you have to defend your case on the grounds of adverse possession.
