Married daughter's share in ancestral property

607 votes

In a ruling that will restrict the right of women seeking equal share in ancestral property, the Supreme Court has said that the 2005 amendment in Hindu law will not give property rights to a daughter if the father died before the amendment came into force.
The court held that the amended provisions of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, could not have retrospective effect despite it being a social legislation. The court said the father would have had to be alive on September 9, 2005, if the daughter were to become a co-sharer with her male siblings.

Hindu Undivided Family: The daughter as the inheritorThe Sunday Story: Haryana’s Out-lawed DaughtersHome is Where the Hurt isHindu woman entitled to equal property rights: SC'Hindu women get equal property rights'Mother died before Act passed,so no inheritance share for son: High CourtHindu Undivided Family: The daughter as the inheritorThe Sunday Story: Haryana’s Out-lawed DaughtersHome is Where the Hurt isHindu woman entitled to equal property rights: SC'Hindu women get equal property rights'Mother died before Act passed,so no inheritance share for son: High CourtHindu Undivided Family: The daughter as the inheritorThe Sunday Story: Haryana’s Out-lawed DaughtersHome is Where the Hurt isHindu woman entitled to equal property rights: SC'Hindu women get equal property rights'Mother died before Act passed,so no inheritance share for son: High Court
1
2
3
4
5
6
PrevNext
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, originally did not give daughters inheritance rights in ancestral property. They could only ask for a right to sustenance from a joint Hindu family. But this disparity was removed by an amendment to the Act on September 9, 2005.
The apex court judgment has now added another disqualification for women regarding their right of inheritance. Until now, they could not ask for a share if the property had been alienated or partitioned before December 20, 2004, the date the Bill was introduced. This judgment makes it imperative for the father to have been alive when the amendment came into force.
Settling the law in the wake of a clutch of appeals arising out of high court judgments, a bench of Justices Anil R Dave and Adarsh K Goel recently held that the date of a daughter becoming coparcener (having equal right in an ancestral property) is “on and from the commencement of the Act”.
The bench overruled the view taken by some high courts that the amendment being a gender legislation that aimed at according equal rights to the daughter in ancestral property by removing discrimination, should be applied retrospectively.
Interpreting statutory provisions, 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.

Advocate Siddhant Sharma LawRato