1. Through out India this judgment of Apex court is hailed as justice to indian hindu women , however one district court in karnataka in determining married daughters share in her fathers ancestral property gave orders based on controversial judgment of hon’ble justice N.Kumar .Hon’ble justice N.kumar judgment was his own application of mind without merit of such controversial subject dealing in pushpalata case where his assumption on determining date of birth applicability of married daughter birth after 17.6.56 was totally prejudiced and uncalled for.it has affected badly rights of hindu married daughter born before 17.6.56 if such case reference was taken by any court which is not required if reference is made to judgment of chakiri yanadi case, pravat chandra pattanaik case,sugal bai v.gundappa maradi.Justice N.Kumar also did not tried to note puspahlata was born much after 1956 and there was no need for him to give observation on Date of birth issue which was his single observation and not required or was not related to the case, his observation needs review properly under legal remedies.the property on which pushpalata claimed her share under shelter of 2005 amendment act was already a partitioned property.I failed to understand under what and which circumstances hon’ble justice N.Kumar went at length so much on date of birth issue perhaps unrelated to the merit of pushpalata case as well as why other courts take reference of such order which cant be applicable based on merits of married daughters claim on her fathers ancestral properties where applicability of date of birth is very simple-” daughters born in coparcenary property has equal share after 9.9.2005 if property is not alienated or partitioned legally before 20.12.2004 irrespective of their date of birth”- no where in 17.6.56 act or modified act 2005 the date of birth is restricted, it is some prejudiced individuals who take date of birth issue and they should be dealt legally.-the views expressed by me here are legal and non controversial and not against any individual nor intended to hurt any individual’s feelings.these statements, views are purely based on merit of various judgments and legality of eminent personalities and books of law-I hope this should be eye opener for poor hindu married daughters in karnataka whose rights were affected based on the controversy created and I hope in view of social justice all right forwarding people in helping such depressed hindu married daughter should overlook hon’ble justice N.Kumar observation based on other right judgment available.Warm regards-Mukesh kumar jain

  2. ALTHOUGH THE JUDGMENT BY HON’BLE JUSTICE N.KUMAR FAVORS MS.PUSHPALATA TOWARDS FAVOURING AFFECT OF AMENDMENT ACT 2005 HOWVER THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY HIM ON DATE OF BIRTH ISSUE RESTRICTIONS IN HIS TOO LENGTHY JUDGMENT WERE HIS OWN IMAGINATIONS UNCALLED FOR IN PUSHPALATA CASE FOR THE REASON BEST KNOWN TO HIM AS DEALING WITH SUCH ISSUE WHICH COULD BE MISINTERPRETED BY MANY WAS NOT NECESSARY.SUCH ISSUES ARE TO BE DECIDED BY ATLEAST TWO OR THREE JUDGES BENCH OR BY APEX COURT BESIDES HON’BLE JUSTICE N.KUMAR DEALT WITH THE DOB MATTER NOT NECESSARY IN PUSHPALATA CASE AT ALL.HE ALSO DID NOT MENTIONED ORISSA COURT JUDGMENT, SUGAL BAI JUDGMENT OF KARNATAKA COURT ,AP TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT IN FAVOUR OF GANDURI KOTESWARAMA RELATED TO COPARCENORY RIGHT OF MARRIED DAUGHTERS IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR DATE OF BIRTH AS DATE IS NOT ISSUE AT ALL IN BOTH ORIGINAL HAS ACT AND AMENDMENT ACT 2005 BESIDES RETROSPECTIVE OR PROSPECTIVE AFFECTS ALSO ARE AS SUCH THAT THE JUDGMENT OF HON’BLE JUSTICE N.KUMAR DOES NOT STAND REQUIRED MERIT OF REFERENCE.IT HAS TO BE referred to the following principles of interpretation of statutes as laid down by the Apex Court : (1) Statutory provisions which create or take away substantive rights are ordinarily prospective. They can be retrospective if made so expressly or by necessary implication and the retrospective operation must be limited only to the extent to which it has been so made either expressly or by necessary implication. (2) The intention of the Legislature has to be gathered from the words used by it, giving them their plain, normal, grammatical meaning. (3) If any provision of a legislation, the purpose of which is to benefit a particular class of persons is ambiguous so that it is capable of two meanings, the meaning which preserves the benefits should be adopted. (4) If the strict grammatical interpretation gives rise to an absurdity or inconsistency, such interpretation should be discarded and an interpretation which will give effect to the purpose will be put on the words, if necessary, even by modification of the language used. The Court also applied the principles stated in American Jurisprudence (2nd Edition, Vol. 73, Page 434, Part 366) quoted with approval by the Supreme Court in S. R. Bommai v. Union of India, (AIR 1994 SC 1980). “While it has been held that it is the duty of the Courts to interpret a statute as they find it without reference to whether its provisions are expedient or inexpedient, it has also been recognised that where a statute is ambiguous and subject to more than one interpretation, the expediency of one construction or the other is properly considered. Indeed, where the arguments are nicely balanced, expediency may trip the scales in favour of a particular construction. It is not the function of a Court in the interpretation of statutes, to vindicate the wisdom of the law. The mere fact that the statute leads to unwise results is not sufficient to justify the Court in rejecting the plain meaning of unambiguous words or in giving to a statute a meaning of which its language is not susceptible, or in restricting the scope of a statute. By the same token an omission or failure to prove for contingencies, which it may seem wise to have provided for specifically, does not justify any judicial addition to the language of the statute. To the contrary, it is the duty of the Courts to interpret a statute as they find it without reference to whether its provisions are wise or unwise, necessary or unnecessary, appropriate or inappropriate, or well or ill conceived.”Now that the hon’ble apex court in his judgment dated 12th october’2011 has put into rest all controversies of such type in deciding the rights of married daughter unambiguously and unequivocal , the viewers should not waste their energies on date of birth issue at all .I would also remind that after passing of HSA ACT 1956 IT HAS RETROSPECTIVE AFFECT ON INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT TOWARDS HINDU WOMEN RIGHTS.THERE IS NO RESTRICTIONS ON DATE OF BIRTH OR DATE OF MARRIAGE IF THE PROPERTY IS NOT PARTITIONED OR ALIENATED LEGALY BEFORE 20-12-2004, HINDU MARRIED DAUGHTERS HAVE EQUAL COPARCENORY RIGHTS IN THEIR FATHER’S ANCESTRAL PROPERTY .IN CASE OF SIKH MARRIED DAUGHTERS THEY COME UNDER HSA ACTS BUT THERE IS SIKH WOMEN ACT WHERE TESTIMONIAL SUCCESSIONS IF NOT GIVING RIGHT TO DAUGHTERS BY THEIR FATHERS BY WILL IS ALSO NOT ACCEPTABLE AND the “WILL” by father CANT BE ACCEPTED AND MARRIED DAUGHTERS GETS EQUAL RIGHT.i have clear view that Mrs.jwalamma devi of mysore should get equal right which she is deprived of due to controversial judgment inspite of clear verdict of Hon’ble Apex court. the views are mine personal and not to affect any one adverse to my ideas and views .Any married daughter not getting their right in their father’s ancestral, self acquired properties should approach the desired court and if justice is not recieved they should file appeal to higher courts and finally to hon’ble Apex court where justice will prevail.I will continue to guide oppresed hindu married daughters against injustice in law in the interest of common public of India -MUKESH KUMAR JAIN

  3. What is the eligibilty for a women to have a share on the property,

    According to law they say the equal sharing of property is eligible only to the women who have got married with in 1985 or before .

    Please tell me the correct date

      1. sir i am from karnataka
        there was a state law telling tat women who married after 2005 only have equal share in fathers / ancestral property.
        then my fathers father dies before 1982
        and when my dady was with uncles…… by the time they bought some land
        a part of which come to us say 4 acres when 1n 1984 my dad separated from his uncles and we got 1 acre ancestral property
        my dad have 3 sisters as my grand pa died much earlier my dad only bought them up and he took der responsibility.
        all of them (my dads sisters)got married much earlier then 1992
        now they areasking shares
        what will be possibilty of court decision?

      2. Dear Sir,
        The Central Amendment of the HSA,2005 repeals all the state amendments(marriage) and have an overriding effect.
        It is sub-judice to discuss about the issue which before the court.
        ecopackindia team

  4. Sir, I have 3 brothers and 1 sister, we are totally 5 and we all have born before 1970 and got married before 1998, we are in Haryana, My sister got married in 1988, We have some ancestral properties. Our mother died before 1998 and father also died in 2000. Now our sister is asking equal share in the ancestral properties. No will was written by my father and mother.

    1. The properties are a residential properties bought by my great grand father and at present in the name of my father.
    2. Some residential and commercial properties bought by and in the name of my father and mother.
    3. Some properties jointly bought by father and brothers and in the name of brothers.
    4. No will was written by father and mother.

    My questions are:
    1. Do my sister entitled to equal rights in all properties as per 2005 amendments.
    2. Any judgment of Supreme Court n Haryana High Courts in this regard

    1. Dear Ms.Vinita,
      All the children(legal heirs) have equal rights over the estate of their father as well as their mother. But, the properties standing in the joint names of your father and brothers must be thoroughly examined to find out the acquisition and its present status.
      1). But, all the daughters have equal rights that of a son in the properties of your father, mother and in the joint names of father and mother.
      2). There is no need to cite any case regarding this subject as it is crystal clear.
      ecopackindia team

  5. Sir,i would like to know whether i can claim my share in my fathers inherited ancestral property since now he has passed away and has made no will this property is currently occupied by my uncles (dad’s brothers) the issue here is that there is no documents what so ever about that land how do i proceed without any document? i would also like to state that i hold an oci card my dad also had an oci card. please help me with this and how to go about it. can i sell the ancestral land which comes under my share? thank you very much.

    1. Dear Ms.Mohini,
      If you do not have details, how will you claim your share?
      Collect the details and documents related or standing in your father`s name and initiate partition proceedings in the appropriate jurisdictional court.

      Please consult the best property advocate in your town/city,after collecting the documents.

      ecopackindia team

  6. I have been surprise by the judgment of hon’ble justice N.Kumar recently given in context of DGP of Karnataka,Shri Shankar Bidri.In 2011 Justice N.Kumar judgment given for Karnataka speaker ruling also was overruled by Chief justice kheher along with another judge of three judges bench .While Judges are called God in our country and they are above criticism but recent cases of judicial chauvism can’t be denied and there are many reasons that judicial accountability bill are brought to parliament and is passed into law recently .While we consider Judgments delivered by judges are to be respected we should not forget that not all but may be one or two judges are biased and judgments may be delivered with any motive to malign somebody or affect somebody’s prospective with some hidden agenda . According to me while human rights report of the STF commander Shri Shankar Bidri was given too much preference by justice N.Kumar over his sacrifice in controlling the menace of Verrapan who created regular panic in tamilnadu and Karnataka over decades and that lead to two riots taking place among two communities in state of Karnataka.Shri Shankar bidri stayed for months in jungles with his team, risked their lives and sacrificed STF men but bought peace to much extent in Karnataka, whose sacrifice resulted in praise by all parties in Karnataka and STF was rewarded.Kidnapping of Rajkumar by same verrappan that almost led to chances of fall of congress government led by shri Krishna and both tamilnadu and Karnataka people were close to riot . There may be excesses by some of the team of STF but stray cases are there always in any law and order maintaining force in all over world.What about excesses done by verappan on villagers, STF personals, their families who lived under tension over years till verappan was killed.What about tension created by verappan in both southern states while kidnapping Dr Rajkumar and his friend , what about torture to their family under mental pressure, how do one brings justice from terrorists , why we give so much preference to human rights of law breakers and highlight them as if Shri Shankar bidri is inhuman.Did any body considered his part of story or truth or just take decision That based on two affidavits of die hard supporters of known fugitive veerappan Hon’ble Justice N.Kumar could compare Shri Shankar Bidri worse than Gaddaffi and Saddam Hussain.Did Justice N.Kumar studied what has been done for years by Saddam Hussain that led to many lives buried and later thousands of graves were found after his death, in worst of genocides known in history he created over decades.Gadaffi looted his own country over decades and did no sacrifice his life but killed all those who opposed him and did genocide and both saddam and gaddafi ruined economies of their country and looted own countrymen where as Shri Bidri led his men to get rid of a fugitive Verrapan sought after by two neighboring states. Those who led their lives to bring to justice fugitives if are compared with saddam and gadaffi and removed from their post which brave men will led their life for our country against naxals, terrorists .People like Gilani in jammu and Kashmir freely move, who eat in our country, criticize our country, support terrorists openly and openly extend logistic supports to Pakistan anti india lobby and they will further roam free ,and our hard earnings goes to tax money that is spent on maintaining peace in Kashmir and our forces don’t have ammunitions to fight when needed ,because of judicially biased judgment like justice N.Kumar delivered who time to time give importance to wrong issues may be to get publicity .Why do we blame terrorists when we have terrorists in our system who punishes martyrs and supports fugitives and terrorists. According to me justice N.Kumar gave wrong judgment may be misusing his chair that led to many married daughters losing their rights on their fathers properties because Shri N.Kumar in 2010 in Pushpalatha case in Karnataka high court judgment case delivered a unnecessary lengthy judgment of around 120 pages where he observed that married daughters who were born after 17.6.56 will only get equal right in their fathers property.I feel Justice N.Kumar was not suppose to deal in any matter whatsoever about date of birth issue after 17 6 56 as the puspalatha case has nothing to do with the date of birth issue and Justice N.Kumar might have committed a grave judicial mistake .Justice N.Kumar affected many poor married daughters right as in his judgment he might have intention to please certain people to the best of his knowledge. These sorts of judgments are like slow killings to those who are affected of these faulty judgments ,I failed to understand What was the need for Justice N.Kumar to deal with date of issue in pushpalata case who was born after 1956, his father got ancestral property under registered partitioned unchallenged and it became his self acquired property therefore his all siblings has equal right as per 17 .6 .56 HSA act, there was no ambiguity for Shri N.Kumar to raise and debate date of birth issue that led many married daughters to suffer and loose their equal rights born prior to 17 6 56 after his prejudiced judgment . it was legal partition pushpalata father got in year 1967 and he died intestate in year 1984.though the judgment favored pushpalata, there was no need for date of birth issue and its lengthy debate over 120 pages by justice N.Kumar .the issue was irrelevant and it is needed that the chief justice of India should review justice N.Kumar conduct in misuse of law. Justice N.Kumar also did not mentioned perhaps intentionally pravat Chandra pattanaik vs sarat Chandra pattanaik case AIR 2008 Orissa 133 ,Sugalbai vs. gundappa maradi and ors ILR 2007 KAR 4790;2008(2)Kar LJ :406 .in this two cases date of birth issue was settled that what needed Justice N.Kumar to debate a non issue in a different case of pushpalata where date of birth issue was irrelevant and he wrote more than 120 pages of observation that led to affect many married women in this country where people does not have much knowledge of law, case laws and taking advantage of this perhaps justice N.Kumar delivered a wrong judgment judicially wrong . Is it not than human right violation also as wrong judgment irrelevant to DOB issue in wrong case against settled principal of law was dealt in by N.Kumar that led many married daughters to suffer ? I want all legal brains of this country to review Shri N.Kumar judgment of 2010 and they will find truth in my allegations which are not against Shri N Kumar but his conduct.If particular judge misuses their positions and affect life of many like in pushpalata judgment I feel in DGP Shankar bidri case also Shri N.Kumar might have gone above board . How a hero of India from Karnataka having clean career over decades is put into trouble by this controversial judgement.I call all justice seeking people to read N.Kumar judgment in case of pushpalatha and see how it damaged married daughters rights ,his judgment than can be termed as talibani judgment if he treats human rights violations so eagerly and seriously as he did in case of DGP of Karnataka, and the judgment was faulty, illegal, prejudiced.While my intention is not to malign any judge and not a complain but as a commen citizen I feel certain wrongs are to be corrected when some one like justice N.Kumar projects himself a true and honest person to give justice .Please give justice to Brave hero like Shri Shankar Bidri who became victim of judicial chauvism in name of human right violation.Human right violation has become tool in hand of certain vested people and they use it time to time to punish their adverseries.

    By Mukesh kumar jain

    1. Dear Sir,

      Thanks. We have received mails regarding the comments made on Mr.Shankar Mahadev Bidari, a real hero, who wiped out the notorious brigand Veerappan` s killer gang and the comments hurts everyone. We hope that the Honourable Chief Justice of karnataka High Court will take up a Suo Motu petition and rectify or modify the comments, which is totally irrelevant and unwarranted and uncalled for.

      If such comments like this are made and careers of such highly motivated officers are blemished, which police officer will ever go to jungle or fight the terrorists, risking their lives?
      The affidavits of brigands and their henchmen carries more weight than the police personnel who risk their lives and the future of their families to safeguard the country?

      We hope that this matter should be brought before the Honourable Chief Justice of India for his review.

      ecopackindia team

  7. Dear Ecopack team,

    I spoke to your Mr.Chandrasekhar on 9th April morning regarding prejudiced judgment of Hon’ble justice N.Kumar and he was very happy that I took up the issue of great indian hero from karnataka Shri Shankar Bidri, IPS and he told me that he will get my article on his web site published and all his team will support this cause to generate widespread public opinion against this uncalled for judgment which should not have come and seeing meritorious records of Shri Shankar Bidri he should have been allowed to continue as DGP and IGP of Karnataka.Also according to me Government could have waited for the certified copy of the order and when Shri bidri made it clear that he was appealing to Hon’ble apex court he could have been allowed to continue till appeal period was there,why should Govt act on a controversial judgment from a controversial judge and gave so much weightage to him and acted in haste against Shri Bidri, they are answerable to people of Karnataka and their pride.,I told him that I had already made my presentation to Hon’ble chief justice of India, chief justice of karnataka high court as well as to NHRC already and wanted him to creat a page separately for Shri Bidri and generate public opinion that he is undisputed hero and pride of the state of Karnataka.
    Jai Hind.
    Mukesh kumar jain

  8. Dear people of karnataka,

    E mere Watan ke logo ,Jara Yaad karo veerapan ki kahani , Jo saheed huai hai unki jara yaad karo kurbani.Jab ghayal hua karnataka, veerapan ne machai tabahi, tab Shri bidri ne di qurabani, jiske mili unko saja, ek aise insan se jiski khud ki hai controversial kahani.

    Will people of karnataka tolerate such people who does not take minutes to spoil career of dedicated police officers who are one of the best decorated officers of the country, will we tolerate such judicial chauvism in name of respect for our best judicial system where one or two people tarnish image of judiciary and people remain muke specttator where they see spotless career of 40 years of a olice officer have become victim of one person who cant even stand one day in jungle as giving judgment from airconditioned chambers are very easy than to face real bullets.

    Mukesh jain

  9. hello sir
    i want to ask,is daughters have any rights to claim in fathers ancestral property ,where her father already transfer his property to his son before 20/12/2004.

    1. Dear Sir,
      How did the kartha transferred the property? is it through a registered partition deed? if so, The case has to be studied in detail. Contact an advocate specialising in HSA and related statutes for help.
      ecopackindia team

  10. can married daughter leaving outside india become an executor in her mother’s will ? does she have to be the citizen of india to become the executor of her mother’s will ? please explain — meena

  11. Hi ecopackindia,

    We have a land in the name of our father. He had 2 sons and 2 daughters. I am one of the daughters. I got married in 1989 and my sister got married in 1955. Will this date affect the partition according to the hindu partition Act of 1956? My father expired in 1983. But, we came to know the fact that he had the land in his name only in 2004, 21 years after his death. I wanted to ask how the partition of the land will take place. By notional partition i.e. 1/3 rd land to father and to his two sons each and then an equal partition of fathers share amongst 2 sons and 2 daughters. In this case, I will get only 1/12the share. Or will the partition take place equally amongst sons and daughters i.e. 1/4th to all? Since we came to know about the property only in 2004 and not at the time of his death. Also, my father also did not know about the property when he was alive. Plz help me regarding the partition of the property and the shares.

    1. Dear Madam,
      Please collect all the information,detail,documents and exact location of the property.
      If the property had not been alienated or dispossessed or sold through conveyance deed or dispossessed through a court decree, ALL THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE PROPONENT(YOUR FATHER) HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS. You must approach the best advocate, who specialises in property related subjects with documentary evidence and approach the appropriate judicial forum to claim your share.
      ecopackindia team

  12. Hello Sir , I have a Sister and Three brothers with me while One of them was adopted at childhood to our relative. The adopted brother had taken a share from his adopted parents, and he is forcing to give a share in my family. As my father is no longer alive he couldn’t make any decision. I request you to please answer me whether he is eligible to take a share in our family. Is my sister (Older) also having an equal share like my brothers ? And, finally I forgot to tell you that my Sister got married in 1988.

    1. Dear Ms.Sony,

      Your sister has got equal claim and share in her father`s estate even though she is married in 1988. Regarding your brother`s adoption and claim in the share has to be examined in the light of The Guardians and Wards Act. Please consult a local advocate, specialising in property matters with all relevant documents and details.

      ecopackindia team

  13. Hi,

    We were fighting a case in bangalore civil court related to property partition.
    Property belonged to my grand father who passed away without any Will.
    Our mother is one of the defendants claiming equal share based on the the amendment passed in 2005 for women having equal rights in undivided property

    Judgement has come and refers to another judgement given by Karnataka High Court, RFA No. 326/2004, Pushpalatha Vs Padma wherein the daughters born before 1956 are not eligible to equal property rights.

    We feel we should appeal in higher courts.
    Could you please let me know what are the procedures to follow and since the judgement has come in High court, do we have a chance of winning this case in High court.

    1. Dear Sir,
      Please explore the possible alternative and file an appeal in the Supreme Court.
      ecopackindia team

    2. Dear Sir, is there any further legal position developed after the judgement given by Karnataka High Court, RFA No. 326/2004, Pushpalatha Vs Padma wherein it apparently appears that the daughters born before 1956 are not eligible to equal property rights? If so, what would daughters get in the ancestral property if they were born before 1956 and now wish to claim?

  14. Dear Sir,
    according to concurrent jurisdictions principle of matters states that, In a HUF a male dies before the central amendment act 2005 by with out writing a will or a partition deed, the female coparceners of that family could not claim the equal share but they are partially allowed. note: its applicable only for the women married before the state act 1989 of tamil nadu.

    1. Dear Sir,
      We are of the opinion that The Central Amendment supersedes or over rides all the state amendments. The jurisdiction of the Central law is clearly stated in the preamble. Therefore, the HSA Amendment 2005 is applicable to all the states of India.

      1. Short title and extent. 1.(1)Short title and extent. This Act may be called the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

      (2) It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

      2. Application of Act. 2.(1)Application of Act. This Act applies- (a) to any person, who is a Hindu by religion in any of its forms or developments, including a Virashaiva, a Lingayat or a follower of the Brahmo, Prarthana or Arya Samaj, (b) to any person who is a Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh by religion, and (c) to any other person who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion, unless it is proved that any such person would not have been governed by the Hindu law or by any custom or usage as part of that law in respect of any of the matters dealt with herein if this Act had not been passed.

      Tamil Nadu is a part of India and Governed by this amendment.

      Substitution of new section for section 6. ! 3. Substitution of new section for section 6.-For section 6 of the principal Act, the following section shall be substituted, namely:- ‘6. 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,- (a) by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son; (b) have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son; (c) 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. (2) 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, as property capable of being disposed of by her by testamentary disposition. (3) 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,- (a) the daughter is allotted the same share as is allotted to a son; (b) 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 (c) 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.
      Sec 6 of the Hindu succession act is amended:

      By this amendement the daughter of coparcener shall by birth become in her own right in the smae manner as the son, she wil have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son.
      Daughter is equal to son, she also becomes the coparceners.
      Even if she is married she is entitle for equal share in the ancestral properties of her father.

      There is no mention of marriage status of the daughter in any part of this amendment.

      This is our view and for confirmation may seek clarification from legal luminaries.
      ecopackindia team

  15. Hi All
    I have a question, My dad Sister died before 32 years by leaving her 3 months boy kid(Krishna). My dad took care of him till his marriage(not adopted). Now he is asking share in the ancestral property, and he filling case in court.

    MY Question is, is he eligible for share in property of my dad ancestral?

  16. hello sirs,

    i am having 2 sisters and they got marrried before 1986. My father having 1 property through his brother’s partition deed dated 1958. Another one part of land he purchased from his one of brother in the year 1969. Another one part of land he purchased from another one brother in the year 1976. All these properties was written on me as FAMILY ARRANGEMENT in the year 2000 with my mother signature but not registered. My father was died in the year 2010. After that i have approached court with my mother and got PERMANANT DEGREE for my rights on family arrangement and all documents name changed as mine. In this situation do my elder sisters having rights on these properties???

    1. Sir,

      How did you get the decree from court? Presuming you as an Hindu, the HSA amendment is applicable to your case, in the outset, YES, your sisters have legitimate claim over the ancestral property, but it has to be examined with all relevant documents and the so called family arrangement deed. Have your sisters signed the family arrangement deed?
      With the amendment to HSA,2005,(Central Act) which has the overriding power on the state Acts or amendments, the marriage issue is irrelevant after HSA 2005.

      EP Team

      1. dear sir,

        FAMILY ARRANGEMENT made by my father and me(son) with my mother on 2000.
        We didn’t ask our sisters to sign. We put a case against my mother because she told me to come possession after her life.

      2. Sir,
        It appears that the family arrangement is made specifically to convey and transfer the property (with a XXXXXXXX intention)to you and the suit filed by you on your mother is to get a deceree from the court by hiding the facts regarding your sisters claim. Still, the female members of the family has the claim and right over the ancestral property.
        Please consult the best advocate in HSA and property matters with all relevant documents and details.
        EP team

  17. Hi,

    My mother married in 1982. She has three elder brothers and her father is alive. There has been no partition of any of the inherited properties so far and her father still acts as the kartha of the family. Can she claim equal share of these ancestral properties like her brothers? We live in Tamil nadu and have been told that daughters who married before 1989 cannot ask for a equal share.
    Thank you for your time.

  18. I heard that daughters who were married before the Hindu succession act 1956 (17/06/1956) not have any right in fathers ancestral property. Please advise me correctly and tell in which court judgement it declared ?

  19. Dear Sir,
    My father purchased two agri land on my two brothers name when they were minor. Now both of them got married and settled well.I am widow staying with my mother and my brothers are not helping me financially to take care of old age mother’s health and other expenses.my father passed away in year 1998.Can I and my mother have right to claim share of property from brothers?

    1. Both of you have right and claim over the property as it was bought by your father. The burden of proof lies on you to prove that they were minors and had no income to buy and it was bought from the income of your father.
      But, One curious question: How can the property be bought in the name of the minors?
      Please consult a local advocate specialised in Property matters. Please collect all the necessary documentary evidence to strengthen your claims and right over the property.
      EP Team

  20. Hello Team
    Just wanted to clarify regarding the daughters right towards the fathers property.
    my father his having 4 sons and 1 daughter (i.e., myself). My father expired on Jun 26 th 2006, and he hadn’t not made any will regarding his property. this property belongs to my father and this is not an ancestress property. and during my marriage (wedding date : 01-03-1985 ) they hadn’t given me anything, and i was informed by father that equal share will be given to all the 5, and even my mom is telling the same thing, but my brothers are refusing it .presently the property is in my father name. till now it has been not transfered to my mother name.
    now my question is
    1. will i have a right to ask the equal share ??
    2. if so, wat are all the procedures for it ??

    1. Dear Ms.Shamanth,

      From your averments, it is assumed that the property is self acquired and is not ancestral in nature, hence, you have equal share that of your brother. Even your mother is a first class legal heir to your father`s estate and can claim 1/6th share.
      You may file a partition suit.
      EP Team

  21. Dear EcopackIndia team,
    My Mother is born in 1955 and her father and mother died in 1994 and 1998 respectively. My mother is alive and wanted to claim her ancestor property from her father’s share .
    She has 2 brothers and 2 sisters. Can she get equal share i.e 1/5 in land and ancestor home? OR she will get 1/3( 1 father , 2 brothers share) x 1/5 =1/15 share?
    Her lawyer is not sure on 1/5 or 1/15 share part and saying she is born before 1956 hence we can not claim equal share like her brothers.

    1. Dear Sir,
      In the absence of any will and if the property is not dispossessed or alienated before 24th,Dec,2004, and if it still stands in the name of her father, she can claim 1/5th share. Please consult your advocate. The issue regarding those born before 1956 is being contested in the SC, hence, cannot comment on it. This is not a legal advice nor recommendation.

      Team Eco Pack

  22. my father purchased few acres agricultural land in 1940s. i have 2 elder sister who were born before 1955 and married before 1989. also i have one younger sister who has born in 1965 and married in 1982. will my elder sisters have share in my father’s self bought property, her sons have filed a case in 2004 with regard to the property and also what about my younger sister? kindly reply

    1. in the absence of a testament by your father or a gift deed in your favour or alienation by the way of transfer, which is registered or a partition deed, all the legal heirs of your father including your mother has equal stake, share and claim over his estate. Consult an advocate specialising in property matters.

      All other aspects and documents(if any) related to the property have to be examined.

      Yes. All the legal heirs of your father including yourself have equal right.

  23. Sir,

    If a son of the first wife gave a release deed, took property and went of from the hindu joint family, is this registered release deed can be challenged at a later date or the sons/daughters of this person can claim the rights on the remaining property.

    Your advice will help me.

    1. Dear Sir,

      All the children or the legal heirs of the first wife including the first wife are termed as first class legal heirs.

      As the details are insufficient and incomplete, our remark may not be appropriate, even then, in general, all the legal heirs have right, title, share, claim and interest over the ancestral as well as the self acquired property of the deceased.

      As the subject is before the judiciary, it is sub-judice to discuss it on this forum.

      EP Team

  24. Sir, Thank you for your prompt response. However my query is different. First wife married son was living with his father and second wife children (some are minors and some are majors). This first wife coparcerner did not want to continue in the joint family and intimated his intention to part from the joint family. Accordingly discussion were held with the father and father agreed to give property. For this, this coparcener executed a relinquishment deed in 1964 in favor of his father and same is registered. In this deed he relinquished all his rights on the remaining property and also future acquired property. By this release deed he also got some property which he got it transferred in his name later.In this deed it is also mentioned that he will have only blood relations and will have no economic relations. He was working as muncipal bill collector and took this property and went off to live his life. At this point of time he has some minor children and some were unborn. He lived his life at different places raising his children. Documents are available to prove this separate living also. He died in the year 1984 and the property came through relinquishment deed also transferred to the deceased wife. Khata extracts are available. Later the father also died and the remaining coparceners made unregistered partition deed and enjoying their property separately. At this juncture (after 50 years) the children (who were some minors and some not born at that time) of first wife coparcerner who relinquished his rights by taking a share in the property are coming now and claiming the share in one of the remaining co parcener property. Another fact is that the remaining co parcerners(second wife children) who parted after the death of the Karta(father) have alienated few of the properties.

    Claim by the children of person who took property and made relinquishment deed in favor of the father – Is it justifiable?
    Kindly provide your opinion and sight any case laws in this regard. Your response will be highly appreciated.

    Thanking you in advance for your clarifications and advice.

  25. Hi sir,
    My grandfather owned a property which is transferred to his wife(grandmother) after his death in 2002. Now she(grandmother) has a son and a daughter to share the property. My mother (born 1966, married 1989 May), does she have any right to inherit the property being in Karnataka.

    Waiting for your suggestions.

    1. If it is self acquired by your grandfather, your granny will have absolute right, title and interest. If it is an ancestral property all the three first class legal heirs have right, share and claim over the schedule property.

  26. hi sir,
    this is prashanth from mysore we are fighting anc. property case in mysore hon supreme court has given legal instructions with respect to the ancestral property on 16-10-2015 which says that in order to get equal share both living daughter and living coparcerner has to be alive how can that be possible because hindu succession act was passed in 2005 and original act was passed in 1956 i mean to say that this act would be usefull for less members am i wrong or this is correct plz kindly clarify

    plz kindly comment on this matter

  27. Dear Sir,
    am a female from karnataka, we are 7 children(4 male and 3 female),2 of my sisters were born before 1956, i was born in 1964 and married in 1982. my father expired in 1994 and mother in 2008. my eldest brother’s wife and their children had filed a partition suit in the year 2004, judgement for the same came in the year 2013 saying will in favour of me was false and said both my mother;s property and my father’s self acquired property has to be divided in 8 equal share, we are 7 children and 8th share is unknown to whom in judgement. we have appealed for the same in district court.
    1)my mother has gifted few acres of land through an unregistered will in the year 2002 with 2 of brother’s witness and 2 of our family friends and both former witness have told before the court that it was signed in my brother’s house, the court held it as false saying it doesnt have stamp dealer-typist witness/sign and the other 2 witness are close to my brother, i dont understand why even though it was signed in my brother house it asked for will-typist witness and how can we expect a stranger as witness. both have told that the will is true and they are witness for it. the property was gifted to my mother by her father and she was the only daughter to their parents.
    2) my father had bought few acres of land and it was bought on his own. will i get share in my father’s self acquired property after recent supreme court judgement? he expired in 1994 without leaving any will. and what about my sisters?
    3) my mother has made a will saying her share in her husband’s self acquired property in favour of one of her daughter inlaws itseems, notary has been done for the same and she is not producing the same before the court saying she is not been made the party in the case and she will take this to court in later stage after final judgement and when she feel she is affected. this particular will was done after a partition suit was filed by my elder bother’s wife and her children.

    can u please clarify these?

    1. 1). In reply to your Query No.1. There is no dispute regarding the title of the property title conferred on your mother as she was the only legal heir and she has absolute right to deal or dispose the said property in any manner as she desires. But, the authenticity and genuineness of the will is being challenged. As you have preferred an appeal, it is sub-judice to comment.
      2). In reply to your Query No.2. If it is proved that the schedule property is self acquired by your father, as a first class legal heir, you have 1/7th share in it.
      3). In reply to you Query No.3, It is your sister in law`s discretion, if she is adversely affected by the partition, she may initiate legal proceedings otherwise, why should she unnecessarily get into any litigation?

  28. thanks a lot for your reply sir.
    *yes the lower court’s decision is been questioned/appealed in district court, right now it has reached argument stage.
    * can my sister-inlaw initiate legal proceedings at any time in future when she is affected, may be after final judgement/FDP stage?

    thank you sir

  29. Thanks a lot Sir.
    I have one more doubt, if in case my mother’s will to me is judged as false, will me and my sister’s get a share in my mother’s property which was gifted to her by her father, will recent supreme court judgement affect us here???

  30. Sir, I have 2 brothers and 1 sister and 1 adopted elder sister but not legally registered , we are totally 5 members and we all have born before 1977 and all got married before 2001, we are in Tirunelveli,Tamilnadu. We have ancestral property on my mother name . My father was died in 1993.No will was written by my father before he died but later in 1997 the will had written by my mother.In will it has written that the properties in my name are not need to make any arrangements to settle for my daughters after my life span.
    Note:My mother is still alive now.
    1. The ancestral property is residential property it was bought by my grandfather and now it is in the name of my mother from will.
    2. And some lands are bought and the amount was setteled by my father and it is registered in the joint name of my mother and elder brother.
    3.The other properties are registered in 1969(lands).
    At the time of registration my mother was
    4.The residential property is will before 1969.

    My questions are:
    1.In the above properties the daughters have
    the equal rights in all properties.
    2.If the properties are registered on (or) before
    1969 it is eligible for daughters.

    1. Dear Ms.Lakshmi ganesan,

      The WILL executed by your mother comes into effect only after her demise.
      1). The properties standing in her name is her absolute properties and can do whatever she wishes and nobody else has any claims.
      2). Though, your father might have bought it, but it stands in the name of your mother. You have to prove it in the court of law that it was actually bought from the money earned by your father. That is a very difficult task.
      3). A House Wife can buy properties.

      a). Your mother is the absolute owner with right, title and interest and no one other than she, has any right or claim or share.
      b). Registration date is irrelevant.

      This is not a legal opinion.
      You may contact a local advocate.

  31. Hi,
    I am writing here on behalf of my father.My Father have 6 sister and he is only son of my grandfather.We have ancestral property in TamilNadu (i.e :My grandfather’s grandfather bought few acres in our native place ).My Aunts are asking for equal share from him.My grandfather died before 1980 and grandmother died in 2008.Whether my father can have all share without sharing with his sisters or should we share equally.If we file a case will my father have positive judgement.Ancestral property is land .They are threatening my father that they will file a case on my father.Initially My father is willing to give 25% of share to them but as we came to know about Hindu Succession Act Sep 9 2005 my father was confused.
    Thank you.


      The following is only for the purpose of general discussion and it will not form any legal opinion.

      HSA-2005 and its impact.
      Daughter can claim the share only if the father is alive in 2005

      In 2005, the Government of India had passed a landmark amendment to The Hindu Succession Act of 1956, granting daughters the right to inherit ancestral property along with their male relatives. But now, a ‘small’ clause has been added to it.

      A daughter can only hold a right to the ancestral property if the father has died after this amendment came into force in 2005, the Supreme Court rules. In other words, the father would have to be alive till September 9, 2005, for the daughter to become a co-sharer of his property along with her male siblings.

      Adding that the amended provisions of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, do not have a retrospective effect, a SC bench comprising Justices Anil R Dave and Adarsh K Goel held that the date of a daughter becoming co-parcener is on and from the commencement of the Act.

      The Hindu Succession Act of 1956 originally denied women the right to inherit ancestral property, allowing them only to ask for sustenance from a joint Hindu family.

      After the amendment was passed in 2005, the only restriction to remain was that women could not ask for a share if the property had been alienated or partitioned before December 20, 2004, which is the date the Bill was introduced.

      The law, which gave equal right to daughters in ancestral property under the Hindu Succession Act, is prospectively enforceable and not with retrospective effect (as held by some High Courts in the country), the Supreme Court declared in its recent verdict.

      A Bench comprising Justice Anil R Dave and Justice A.K. Goel, in its October 16, 2015, interpreted the succession law while setting aside the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case Prakash v Phulavati of 2010.

      The Apex Court was dealing with the only issue which has been raised in this batch of matters, whether Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (‘the Amendment Act’) will have retrospective effect. In the impugned Judgment (Phulavati v Prakash), plea of restrospectivity has been upheld in favour of the respondents by which the appellants are aggrieved. According to the case of the plaintiff, the suit properties were acquired by her late father Yeshwanth Chandrakant Upadhye by inheritance from his adoptive mother Smt. Sunanda Bai. After the death of her father on 18th February, 1988, she acquired the share in the property as claimed. The suit was contested mainly with the plea that the plaintiff could claim share only in the self acquired property of her deceased father and not in the entire property. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff amended the plaint so as to claim share as per the Amended Act 39 of 2005.
      The Karnataka High Court had held that daughters would be entitled to equal share even if father had died prior to September 9, 2005, when litigations over partition were pending in courts. The defendants-appellants have questioned the Judgment and Order of the High Court with the contention that the amended provision of Section 6 has no application in the present case. Father of the plaintiff died on 18th February, 1988 and was thus, not a coparcener on the date of commencement of the Amendment Act.

      The plaintiff could not claim to be “the daughter of a coparcener” at the time of commencement of the Act which was the necessary condition for claiming the benefit. The amendments of 2005 gave equal right to daughters in coparcener properties by removing the discrimination that existed in the original enactment, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 against Hindu women on rights over ancestral properties. The Apex Court said that the rights under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 are applicable to living daughters of living coparceners (those persons sharing the inheritance of an undivided property equally with others) as on September 9, 2005 (when amendments came into force) irrespective of when such daughters were born. “The text of the 2005 amendment, itself clearly provides that the right conferred on a ‘daughter of a coparcener’ is ‘on and from the commencement’ of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.”

      “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,” the Supreme Court said. In the present Amendment Act of 2005, “There is neither any express provision for giving retrospective effect to the amended provision nor necessary intendment to that effect.” “We are unable to find any reason to hold that birth of the daughter after the amendment was a necessary condition for its applicability.
      All that is required is that daughter should be alive and her father should also be alive on the date of amendment,” the Apex Court said.

      In the present case, the property had already been partitioned, acted upon and alienated and the father of the plaintiff had passed away much before partition. i.e.,1982 and hence, cannot file the suit for partition.
      The order in Pulavati and Prakahs which was adjudicated in 2015, The Bench has cleared all the ambiguity and gave its final verdict, which is read as under:

      “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,” the Supreme Court said. In the present Amendment Act of 2005, “There is neither any express provision for giving retrospective effect to the amended provision nor necessary intendment to that effect.” “We are unable to find any reason to hold that birth of the daughter after the amendment was a necessary condition for its applicability.
      All that is required is that daughter should be alive and her father should also be alive on the date of amendment,” the Apex Court said.

Comments are closed.