1) it is self acquired property of grand father

2) on grand father demise your father had one third share in the property .

3) on father demise his one third share will devolve on his first wife , and 10 children equally

4) the SC judgment is applicable only in respect of ancestral property

5) property inherited by father from your grand father is not ancestral property

6) your married sisters can file suit for partition to claim share in property

7) sisters can object to MRO issue of passbooks only in name of male members as they have equal share in property

1) it is ancestral property

2) since father died before 2005 daughter would not have any share in ancestral properties

Hi, As the property is the ancestral property of your father and your father died on or before [deleted] then daughters of your father have no right to claim share in the ancestral property of your father as per the Judgement of the Supreme Court.

Dear Querist

Because your father died before 2005 hence hindu succession act 1956 will be applicable and as per said act female are not eligible to get equal share in ancestral property.

Contact a lawyer personally with the property documents. It will be better.

The much talked about SC judgment applies to only ancestral property whereas the property originally purchased or separately owned by your grandfather does not become ancestral property for his grandchildren. Since your father died intestate his share in the property devolved equally on all his heirs i.e widow, mother and children, any one of whom is at liberty to cull out his/her share in the property through a suit for partition.

Question is since the latest supreme Court ruling and clarification in 2015 on the women's right on property, do the women get any share in my grand father's property? We are intending too get the parts far passbooks changed from our grand father's name onto the male members of the family only. Can MRO stop issuing passbooks in this case to only male members?

Presuming it to be your grandfather's self acquired or inherited as his share from is father, this property shall become his own and absolute property. Therefore it cannot be considered as ancestral property at this juncture nor you will be considered as a coparcener. However as your father in entitled to a share in the intestate property left behind by your grandfather, and since he too died intestate, his share of property shall devolve equally among his legal heirs. If he married for the second time after the death of his first wife then his children of second marriage and the second wife shall also be entitled to a share out of his share in the property along with the children of first marriage.

The supreme court ruling or the latest amendment in the year 2005 has no effect on this

The property to my grand father is also come to him from his grand father.

If the property was his share out of his father's property to your grandfather then it can be termed as your grandfather's absolute and own property which cannot be termed as ancestral property now.

1) if property has remained undivided for four generations it is ancestral property .

2) in your case since father died before 2005 as per Sc judgment daughter would not get any share in ancestral property .

3)Supreme Court (SC) in the case of Prakash & Ors v. Phulavati & Ors, rendered on 16 October 2015. SC, in its judgment, has held that the property rights of daughters are prospective in their application, i.e., to be available only if both the father and the daughter are alive on the date of commencement of the Amendment Act (i.e., 9 September 2005

4) the daughter would have share only in self acquired property of father

if per the latest supreme Court ruling, women do not have any share in the property..does it mean that women do not get any share at all or they just don't get equal share? Some one suggested that the pop property would be divided into 6 parts (1 for father and 5 for sons) and daughters will get share in the father's part. Kindly clarify if this is true.

The supreme court ruling says that the women acquire rights in the ancestral properties after the latest amendment that came into effect from 2005 as a coparcener. The supreme court never said that women do not have rights. If this property was ancestral then if you are not married prior to 2005 you shall be entitled to a share out of your father's share in the ancestral property. If you were married before 2005, then you may be entitled to a share out of your father's share after which it was further partitioned among his coparceners, provided it becomes an intestate property.

1. The mere fact that the property was originally purchased by great grandfather and then devolved through succession on his father i.e grandfather of the claimant does not make the property ancestral. The ancestral character would never embrace the property if it was divided or there was a disposition. Furthermore, during the lifetime of father the property would not become ancestral in the hands of great grandson.

2. For properties the succession to which had opened prior to 9.9.2005 the daughters do not avail the benefit of the amended act.