Rights of a Married Daughter as per Hindu succession Act in Ancestral Property

 

  • Introduction of 2005 Amendment

             Keeping the aforesaid position of Hindu Law, in its 174th Report (May 2000), the Law      Commission of India was of the view that the gender reforms were        called for to             ensure equality. The Commission noted the fact that in various             States such as Kerala,         Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Karnataka, attempts had already been     made to bring about the gender             equality. But all these States, except Kerala, while    conferring coparcenary rights on daughters also denied such rights to daughters married         prior to State Acts coming into force. The Law Commission recommended that the daughter should be made coparcener by birth and that she should be entitled to get a            share on partition and/or on the death of the male coparcener. The Commission     also      recommended that a daughter who is married after the commencement of the Amendment Act, should be entitled to a share in the ancestral property as she has        already become a coparcener prior to her marriage. One more recommendation of the             Law Commission was to do away with the erstwhile Section 23 of the Principal Act which provided that a woman would have a right to stay in the family house as a    member            of the joint Hindu Family but unlike a male, she would have no right to demand a          partition of the family house. The Commission recommended that she should have       rights equal to the male in respect of a family house. Thereafter on 9th September,    2005, the Amendment Act, 2005 came to be passed as Act 39 of 2005.       Section 3 of the            Amending Act substituted erstwhile Section 6 of the Principal           Act. The Amendment   Act, 2005 did away with exclusion of married daughter           from getting the benefit of the amendment and also added a proviso to             Section 6(1) of the Principal Act saving partitions          done prior to 20th December,        2004 (the date of introduction of the Bill in Rajya sabha).          The Explanation to Section 6(5) of the Principal Act provided that for the purposes of           the Section 6 of the Act partition only means partition by registered document or    decree of             Court.

  • Section 6 of the Hindu succession Act

Devolution of interest in coparcenary property. —

 

  1.  On and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005*, in a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener shall,—
  2.  by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son;
  3.  have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son;
  4.  be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenary property as that of a son, and any reference to a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to include a reference to a daughter of a coparcener: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect or invalidate any disposition or alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of property which had taken place before the 20th day of December, 2004.
  5.  Any property to which a female Hindu becomes entitled by virtue of sub­-section (1) shall be held by her with the incidents of coparcenary ownership and

 

shall be regarded, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force in, as property capable of being disposed of by her by testamentary disposition.

  1.  Where a Hindu dies after the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005*, his interest in the property of a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be, under this Act and not by survivorship, and the coparcenary property shall be deemed to have been divided as if a partition had taken place and,—
  2.  the daughter is allotted the same share as is allotted to a son;
  3.  the share of the pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter, as they would have got had they been alive at the time of partition, shall be allotted to the surviving child of such pre-deceased son or of such pre-deceased daughter; and
  4.  the share of the pre-deceased child of a pre-deceased son or of a pre­-deceased daughter, as such child would have got had he or she been alive at the time of the partition, shall be allotted to the child of such pre-deceased child of the pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter, as the case may be.

 

Explanation. —For the purposes of this sub-section, the interest of a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition of the property had taken place immediately before his death, irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not.

  1.  After the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005*, no court shall recognise any right to proceed against a son, grandson or great­-grandson for the recovery of any debt due from his father, grandfather or great-grandfather solely on the ground of the pious obligation under the Hindu law, of such son, grandson or great-grandson to discharge any such debt: Provided that in the case of any debt contracted before the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005*, nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect—
  2.  the right of any creditor to proceed against the son, grandson or great-grandson, as the case may be; or
  3.  any alienation made in respect of or in satisfaction of, any such debt, and any such right or alienation shall be enforceable under the rule of pious obligation in the same manner and to the same extent as it would have been enforceable as if the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 had not been enacted.

 

Explanation. —For the purposes of clause (a), the expression “son”, “grandson” or “great-grandson” shall be deemed to refer to the son, grandson or great-grandson, as the case may be, who was born or adopted prior to the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005*.

  1.  Nothing contained in this section shall apply to a partition, which has been effected before the 20th day of December, 2004. Explanation. —For the purposes of this section “partition” means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court.] Statement of Objects and Reasons The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005] Section 6 of the Act deals with devolution of interest of a male Hindu in coparcenary property and recognises the rule of devolution by survivorship among the members of the coparcenary.

 

  • Married Daughters Share in Ancestral Property post 2005 Amendment

 

            A Daughter who is married prior to the 2005 amendment is not entitled to a share in the       Ancestral Property. The 2005 amendment is prospective in nature. On an examination of         amended Section 6 of the Principal Act and bearing in mind the words 'on and from             commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 2005' found in Section 6, it must follow that the            rights under the amended Section 6 can be exercised by a daughter of a coparcener only after     the commencement of the Amendment Act, 2005. In the judgement  Kishore Morarji      Bhojraj and Ors. Vs. Jaya Hiranchand Karani and Ors. statesIt is however clear

             from the provisions of law set out before that neither Defendant No. 1, a  daughter of             Morarji and Champaben, and who married in 1959, nor Nalini who married in 1964, would   have had any rights to that property. They would not have received any part of the sale             consideration but for the incorrect premise and understanding on which all proceeded. Anju,   Defendant No. 2, is the daughter of Nalini, and Defendant No. 3 is her father. If Nalini herself could not have received a share, Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 could not have succeeded to any       such share either. None of the Defendants would receive this as coparceners in the HUF     but       only as inheritance from Champaben”. In the judgement   Kachru and Ors. Vs. Parighabai ,     Parigabai who was the real sister of Kachru got married prior to the 2005 amendment claimed      a Share in the Ancestral Property . It was  held since the marriage of Parigabai took place      prior to the 2005 amendment she was not entitled to a Share in the Ancestral Property . She            was only entitled to claim a share inherited via her Parents in the HUF Properties. A different             view has been taken in the judgement Leelabai Vs.  Bhikabai Shriram Pakhare where it      has       been held that even though the daughter i.e. respondent was married before 1994 and the      parents died well before coming into force of the new            section 6, the respondent would            acquire equal rights in the coparcenary             property only by virtue of her birth in the Hindu joint   family, undisputedly governed by Mitakshara Law, in the same manner as the son and would   have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had,     if she had been a           son. That means the right of the respondent as a       coparcener, equal in status and effect as that     of a son, would have to be understood as having arisen on the date on which she took birth         and, therefore, she would be entitled to claim her equal share in the  coparcenary      property             from that date, unless the property has lost its character as a coparcenary property by             disposition or alienation made before 20-12-1994, as contemplated in proviso to sub-            section (1) of section 6 read with sub-section (5). In the instant case, there has been no             disposition or alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition as  contemplated    under section 6(1) read with sub-section (5) before 20-   12-2004having taken place and,         therefore, the respondent would have equal share in the coparcenary property and would be    entitled to even re-open the notional partitions, which are not covered under the Explanation            to sub-section (5) of section 6.

 

  • Married Daughters Share in her Fathers Property Post 2005 Amendment.

 

            A married Daughter is entitled to claim a share in her Fathers Properties irrespective of her       being born or married prior to the 2005 amendment provided the partition has not being             effected before 20th December 2004. In the judgement  Prakash & Ors v Phulavati & Ors. it was held that the rights under the Central amendment are available to living daughters of         living coparceners as on the date of enactment of the Central Amendment,i.e.,9th             September        2005, irrespective of their dates of birth.            Dispositions or alienations, including partitions,           before 20th December 2004 in accordance with the law applicable before that date remain         unaffected. In the judgement Badrinarayan Shankar Bhandari and Ors. vs  Omprakash        Shankar Bhandari it was held that , Amended Section 6 applies to daughters born prior            to         17th June, 1956 or thereafter (between 17th June, 1956 and 8th September, 2005), provided   they are alive on 9th September, 2005 that is on the date when the Amendment Act of 2005 came into force. In the judgement  Poonam and Ors. Vs. Fulchand and  Ors. it was held that          perusal of Section 6 of Act shows that daughter of coparcenary would get birth            right in             coparcenary property in same manner as son would get .There was virtually no difficulty in    applying this law where daughter was alive and coparcenary property was available to her          for demanding share in it . Roved properly then, daughter of coparcenary would not seek       partition of  coparcenary property .Therefore, Appellant/Plaintiffs were entitled to equal        share with that of their brothers in their fathers property.

 

  • 2005 Amendment whether Prospective or Retrospective.

 

            The 2005 amendment has been held to be Prospective in nature in  various Bombay High     Court and Supreme Court Judgements. Under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act the       Commencing words on and from commencement of Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005         proved that the Act is prospective in operation. In the judgement Badrinarayan Shankar           Bhandari and Ors. vs  Omprakash Shankar Bhandari it has been held that Section 3 of Act            stood substituted with effect from specified date .It could not be said that Section 6 of Act     related back to specified date when Principal Act came into force . The Commencing words      on and from commencement of Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005 proved Act was     prospective in operation . Certain clauses in the Act proved that operation of Act was not           retrospective but prospective . Therefore Appellants failed to prove that the operation of the Act was retrospective in nature. In the judgement , Prakash & Ors v Phulavati & Ors it was     held that in view of plain language of the statute, there is no scope for a        different           interpretation than the one suggested by the text of the amendment. An amendment of a          substantive provision is always prospective unless either   expressly or by necessary           intendment it is retrospective. In the present case, there is neither any express provision for           giving retrospective effect to the amended provision nor necessary intendment to that effect.         Requirement of partition being registered can have no application to statutory notional partition on opening of succession as per unamended provision, having regard to nature of     such partition which is by operation of law. On this finding, the view of the High Court           cannot be sustained. The Contention of the Respondents that the Amendment should be read            as retrospective being a piece of social legislation cannot be accepted. Even a social    legislation cannot be given retrospective effect unless so provided for or so intended by the legislature. In the present case, the legislature has expressly made the Amendment applicable    on and from its commencement and only if death of the coparcener in question is after the        Amendment. Thus, no other interpretation is possible in view of express language of the        statute. The proviso keeping dispositions or alienations or partitions prior to 20th December,             2004 unaffected can also not lead to the inference that the daughter could be a coparcener     prior to the commencement of the Act.

 

If you like my article, please share this on :


Search Professional Post Query Post Assignment Read More Articles

In case of business query on above subject, comment here or contact Varsha Kewalramani




article author

Varsha Kewalramani

Legal Expert
Assosciate, Ic legal



CHECKOUT TRENDING ARTICLES


  • How to Pay Zero Tax for Income up to Rs 12 Lakhs from Salary for Financial Year 2016-17

  • Do not wait till 31st July to file your Income Tax Return – Keep Ready 9 documents to file before due date

  • Missed to Submit HRA declaration to Employer? You can claim HRA at the time of Filing Returns and get Refund from Income Tax

  • Features and Step wise process - Income Declaration Scheme 2016 – Convert your Black Money to White

  • How to Pay Zero Tax for Business Receipts -Turnover of Rs 1 Crore

  • How to Pay Zero Tax for Professionals (CA, CS, Lawyers, Doctors, etc) earning Income of Rs 16 Lakhs

  • Why you should file Income Tax Return? Benefits of Filing Income Tax Returns

  • How to save Rs 10 crore as retirement corpus

  • Having Turnover of Less than 10 Lakhs? How to File NIL Service Tax return with Circular No 033/2012

  • Starting a New Business or Profession? Compare Structure and type of Entity– Sole, Partnership, LLP or Company

  • Revised and Latest TDS Tax Deducted at Source Rate Chart for FY 2016-17 AY 2017-18

  • Exemption for Capital Gain Arising on Transfer of Resident House Property

  • WILL- Important points, Tax Advantages of will and Format of WILL

  • Revised and Latest TDS Tax Deducted at Source Rate Chart for FY 2016-17 AY 2017-18

  • Exemption for Capital Gain Arising on Transfer of Resident House Property

  • WILL- Important points, Tax Advantages of will and Format of WILL

  • Senior Citizens Tax Benefits in Income Tax Act - Filing, exemptions, advance tax and other benefits

  • Registration process for Trade Mark


  • GET FREE ARTICLE UPDATES VIA EMAIL

    Always stay updated with latest information on expertmile

    I hope by reading this article you got enlighten on ,Rights of a Married Daughter as per Hindu succession Act in Ancestral Propertyfurther to mention before taken any financial decision based on this content it is prefered to take an expert opinion as matter can be subjective.