Note: Daughters and sons cannot claim the mother`s ancestral property during the mother`s lifetime. A girl can acquire, own and sell property on an equal footing with any other man. The verdict was based on an appeal by the legal heirs of Arunachala Gounder; it set aside the judgements of the Madras High Court and a Court of First Instance in the case. The legal situation of the concept of heir is quite clear. Indian law, like most laws in the world, recognizes the concept of heir. Heirs include people who have the legal right to inherit the property of their ancestors. The law applies to the property of ancestors and to the legal succession of personal property, in which the legal succession is carried out in accordance with the law and not by will. Assuming that a Hindu makes a will or disposition of property in favor of the son under the Hindu Inheritance Act 1956 and not the daughter, then the daughter will not be able to challenge the will and not take advantage of the Supreme Court`s decision. But if a Hindu dies without possession of property, then girls have the right to claim an equal inheritance. If a daughter is born before September 9, 2005, she will become co-active, in her own right, in the same way as sons. i.e. with the same rights and responsibilities, provided that there was no separation/division/decentralization before 20 December 2004.
As long as the property has remained biographical property and has not been divided at the time of the date, a girl can now claim an interest in it. “On the one hand, the decision will serve as a guiding rule for all lower courts to rule fairly on issues concerning girls` property rights, and on the other hand, it will open a Pandora`s box to litigation arising from cases where girls have not received a share of their father`s self-acquired property. because the decision does not deal with the prospective or retroactive application of the established law,” he added. The HSA states that anyone who has converted to another religion can still inherit property. The law in India does not disqualify a person who follows a property because he has decided to change his faith. The Elimination of Caste Handicaps Act stipulates that any person who has renounced his or her religion may inherit property. However, the heirs of the convert do not enjoy the same rights. If the son or daughter of a convert practices a religion other than Hinduism, he may be excluded from the inheritance of ancestral property. In addition, in Danamma v. Amar Singh, the Supreme Court ruled that if the father who died before September 9, 2005 is a Coparcener and a previous lawsuit is pending to be divided by a male Coparcener, the daughter is also entitled to a share of the parents` property. Before independence, it was unusual for a girl to receive a share of her father`s property.
In 1956, the Hindu Succession Act was established. He unified the laws of inheritance. But even this law favored male heirs. People thought that a girl would marry and be part of someone else`s family, and so it would alienate the property if she gave her share of the property. In January 2022, the Supreme Court, in its decision in Arunachala Gounder (dead) v Ponnuswamy[1], ruled that the self-acquired property of a dying Hindu man would be transferred by inheritance rather than inheritance. In addition, the daughter has the right to inherit such property as well as property acquired through the division of the property of a biographer or family. It was also found that if a woman died without a will, the ancestral property transferred from her father to her would be given to her father`s heirs and the property transferred to her from her husband`s side would be transferred to her husband`s heir if she died without issue. If the ownership of a male Hindu dye (without a will) is self-acquired property or was acquired upon the division of a koparzön or family property, it would be born by inheritance and not by survival, and the daughter of such a male Hindu would have the right to inherit it in primacy over others (such as the sons/daughters of the deceased father`s brothers), A bench of judges S Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari said in a 51-page order. Today, the inheritance and inheritance laws in India have undergone several changes and reforms through changes and laws. As a result, daughters now have an equal share of the property as sons. To be more precise, gender can hardly be taken into account because of the girl`s right to both co-parking and self-acquired property. That is, this law did not provide for ancestral property rights for married girls, which is why they automatically lost their rights to their father`s property as soon as their daughters were married.
The dominant idea was that the girl would be part of someone else`s family after marriage and, therefore, giving her a share would alienate the property. Read: Everything you need to know about the tripartite agreement Yes, according to the law, a married girl has every right to claim a share of her father`s property. She is just as right as her single brother or sister. The provisions of section 6 of the Hindu Inheritance Act, 1956 confer on a daughter born before or after the amendment the status of copercent in the same way as a son with the same rights and responsibilities. The Tribunal considered an interpretation of article 6 after it was amended in 2005. The amendment gave girls equal rights to ancestral property. The rights may be claimed by a girl born earlier on or after 9 September 2005. The decision expanded girls` rights. The retroactive application of article 6 was analysed and it was decided that girls would receive the rights from 1956, when the law came into force. However, it would not reopen the alienation of ancestral property earlier by the existing Koperzeners. Only a Coparcener has the right to demand the division of property.
A share in a property is adored by birth or death in a family. Prior to 2005, daughters were never considered equal to sons with respect to their rights to their father`s property. Unlike sons, daughters could only be “members,” not “co-sharers” (people who are legally entitled to their ancestral property from birth). While Coparceners could ask for the division and release of the property, the members could not. As soon as the daughter marries, she ceases to be a member of the HUF (Hindu Undivided Family) and thus loses her right to share and maintain her father`s property. Since the social equation has changed rapidly in recent years, the need for equality in fathers` property has been felt again and again. As a result, an Amendment Act to the Hindu Succession Act (1956) was added in 2005. This was done to ensure that the daughter had an equal right to the father`s property (regardless of marital status). Read on to learn more about how this law firmly entrenched girls` right to fathers` property. The new amending law clearly states that if the father dies indistable (without making a will).
Then the daughter is the sole heiress; Second, she has a legal right to property by birth and not by male members of the extended family (i.e. the son of the deceased`s brother). Only in the case of a will that transfers property rights to the male heirs of the extended family, the legal daughter cannot claim a share. After marriage, a girl will cease to be a member of her parental HUF, but will continue to be a co-park. Therefore, she has the right to request the division of huf property and become the HuF Karta if she happens to be the oldest coparzen woman in her father`s HUF. What proportion can married girls claim from their father`s property? According to the Supreme Court decision, a girl on her father`s ancestral property receives an equal right with her brothers. However, this does not mean that property is divided equally between a brother and sister after the father`s death. Since inheritance law also confers property rights on other legal heirs of the testator, the division of property according to the share of each heir is governed by the applicable inheritance laws. A married daughter who has an equal share of her father`s property simply means that each share claimed by her brother also receives the same share. With regard to the enactment of the 1956 Act, the main objective of the HSA was to establish full equality between men and women in terms of property rights, and women`s rights were declared absolute, thus completely abolishing any notion of limited succession.
Women had absolute ownership of their property, but had no coding rights over ancestral property. The Act discriminated against women solely on the basis of their gender and violated their fundamental right to equality under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. We have come a long way when it comes to women`s rights.