• HSA Amendment 2005

According to HSA Amendment 2005 daughters are also coparcenors from birth like the sons. Irrespective of when the father dies the sons stay coparcenors. As per the latest sc ruling only if the father was alive when the amendment was passed would she get a share in the coparcenary. In that case would she lose her status as coparcenors acquired by birth if the father dies earlier? When the son continues to be one why not the daughter? What is the relevance of the HSA 2005 repeal under Act 17 of 2015? Iam not a lawyer and it is confusing. Pl.clarify.
Asked 10 months ago in Property Law from Chennai, Tamil Nadu
Religion: Hindu
the apex court held that amended provisions of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, do not have retrospective effect. The father would have to be alive on September 9, 2005, if the daughter were to become a co-sharer with her male siblings

2) date of a daughter becoming coparcener (having equal right in an ancestral property) is "on and from the commencement of the Act".

3)The top court shot down the argument that a daughter acquires right by birth, and even if her father had died prior to the amendment, the shares of the parties were required to be redefined. "The text of the amendment itself clearly provides that the right conferred on a 'daughter of a coparcener' is 'on and from the commencement' of the amendment Ac
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
23380 Answers
1227 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
1) apex order court is final and binding 

2)the interpretation given by SC that daughters will have no right on ancestral property if father died before 2005 is final 

3) The text of the amendment itself clearly provides that the right conferred on a 'daughter of a coparcener' is 'on and from the commencement' of the amendment Act 2005
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
23380 Answers
1227 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
To make things clear for yourself the only thing you should know is that if the father passed away before HSA Amendment of 2005 the daughters are not coparcenors. The law is prospective and not retrospective. It cannot widen the coparcenory in retrospect. Where do you challenge the order of the apex court?
Ashish Davessar
Advocate, Jaipur
18246 Answers
450 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
First of all become aware that the Hindu Succession act amendment came into force in the year 2005 by a central act , however the same had been amended on various dates prior to that in various other states including Tamilnadu.  In Tamilnadu this rule came into effect in the year 1989.  It has no effect to the central amendment  which came into force in the year 2005.  As per the amendment, a daughter attains coparcenary rights in the ancestral properties by birth provided that the property remained ancestral for three generations in the same status till it fell into the hands of the fourth generation as on the date of the said amendment that came into force.  Thus as per State amendment of Tamilnadu, the daughter acquires this right from the year 1989 onward.  The supreme court ruling should be read properly to understand it. The court has passed a judgment stating that that if the father through whose share shall the ancestral property shall be further distributed among his children has died before commencement of this amendment then the nature f ancestral property extinguishes thereby the daughters shall not get the coparcenary rights whereas they will certainly get their rights to an equal share in their father's share of  property upon his intestate death even though he died before the amendment came into force. 
Now to your question that why if there was a right to son by birth as a coparcener even before amendment and why not to the daughters.  The amendment came into effect considering the existing discrimination for sons and daughters which was not available for the daughters earlier.
T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
14158 Answers
128 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Sec.6 of the HSA 1956 has been substituted by sec.6 of HSA 2005. Act.17 of 2015 has repealed the 2005 amendment as old sec.6 in the older act has been replaced by the new one. So, should it not be understood to be effective from 1956? Why does HSA Sec.6 say " a daughter becomes coparceners from birth "? Has anybody challenged this order of the apex court sir
This position was challenged by lot of people earlier and the apex court has clearly given the verdict that since the amendment has no retrospective effect, the coparcenary rights  to the daughters shall be available only from the date of amendment wherein the property is still under the status of ancestral in nature. 
T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
14158 Answers
128 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Hi, as per latest Supreme Court ruling daughter will become coparcenor by birth with prospective effect and not a retrospective effect.

2. Therefore in case of partition daughter will be entitled to claim share in the property only when the death of his father on or before 09-09-2005.
 
3. Suppose if the father died before 09-09-2005 then she will not entitled to claim share in the ancestral property. 
Pradeep Bharathipura
Advocate, Bangalore
4105 Answers
133 Consultations
4.3 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
14158 Answers
128 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
23380 Answers
1227 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Ashish Davessar
Advocate, Jaipur
18246 Answers
450 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
Shivendra Pratap Singh
Advocate, Lucknow
2786 Answers
41 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
Atulay Nehra
Advocate, Noida
444 Answers
15 Consultations
4.7 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
66 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0