1. Daughters born before 2005 have right in their fathers’ property, says Supreme Court

Daughters born before 2005 have right in their fathers’ property, says Supreme Court

In a ruling that will ensure equality between men and women, the Supreme Court on Friday made it clear that women born before 2005 have equal right on ancestral property.

By: | New Delhi | Published: February 3, 2018 12:28 PM
indian women, ancestral rights, ancestral property, daughters ancestral property, fathers property, supreme court, hindu succession act 2005 In a ruling that will ensure equality between men and women, the Supreme Court on Friday made it clear that women born before 2005 have equal right on ancestral property.

In a ruling that will ensure equality between men and women, the Supreme Court on Friday made it clear that women born before 2005 have equal right on ancestral property. The apex court stated that the Hindu Succession Act 2005 which gives equal rights to daughters on ancestral property, will be applied to all women including those born before the year.

A bench of Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan said that the share in ancestral property could not be denied, to a woman, on the ground that she was born before the law was passed, and the law was applicable in all property disputes filed before 2005 and pending when the law was framed. The bench added that the amended law stipulated that a daughter would be a “coparcener” (one who shares equally in inheritance of an undivided property) since birth, and have the same rights and liabilities as a son.

“The law relating to a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law has undergone unprecedented changes. The said changes have been brought forward to address the growing need to merit equal treatment to the nearest female relatives, namely daughters. These changes have been sought… on the touchstone of equality, thus seeking to remove the perceived disability and prejudice to which a daughter was subjected,” the bench was quoted as saying by TOI.

Passing the order on a plea filed by two sisters seeking a share in their late father’s property, the court said that the law was amended to give women equal status with men in matters related to ancestral property. The two sisters approached the apex court after the trial court in 2007 dismissed their plea saying that they were not entitled to any share as they were born before 2005. The High Court also rejected their plea. Setting aside the High Court order, the Supreme Court said that the year of birth was not a criterion to decide whether a woman was covered under the amended law.

In 2015, the Supreme Court had 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.

Get live Stock Prices from BSE and NSE and latest NAV, portfolio of Mutual Funds, calculate your tax by Income Tax Calculator, know market’s Top Gainers, Top Losers & Best Equity Funds. Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

  1. Karthik Guruva
    Feb 27, 2018 at 10:00 pm
    stupid justice, all housing loan and all type of taxes is done to paid by son but women will get equal right in property?, Worst judge who is given by this judgement.
    1. nani pulimati
      Feb 4, 2018 at 9:15 pm
      What a stupid justice.....why 2005....this is just common sense.. that case why only property....why the male should not go to mother in laws home...at least if you you change this rule female ratio will increase.. that case including everyone has to go to fatherinlaws home...the justice shows the maturity of of ppl recruiting at different levels
      1. bhavin gupta
        Feb 4, 2018 at 9:10 pm
        Only unmerried girls should get equal rights in her parents property...and married girl should have equal rights in her in-laws property ....plz judges change this law... plz change ...it's request to u from all over India's brother and from parents for healty relationship....plz change
        1. bhavin gupta
          Feb 4, 2018 at 9:03 pm
          Plz.change this law ....there is no more good relation between brother and sister.....sister are misusing this law after marriage...judges have to make new law for merried girls ....they should get equal rights from her in-laws property not from her parent's property....this make them happy...and there is way to save relation of brother and sister relation....plz judges change this law...plz change....
          1. Ezil Kannan
            Feb 4, 2018 at 11:45 pm
            Why should she give up her right to inheritance? Let her get her fair share.
          2. bhavin gupta
            Feb 4, 2018 at 8:46 pm
            Supreme court judges please change this law for good relation between brother and sister.....any brother don't belive on her sister
            1. bhavin gupta
              Feb 4, 2018 at 8:43 pm
              Daughter right is nonsense....they should get property from her husband side .....or before mothers father's death...this law is not good for brother and sister relation....if there is any possibility please he this law...and make new law only unmarried daughter have equal share in their parents property and merried daughter have right in her husband parents property...so she can get easily her rights....please change this law
              1. riya shaik
                Feb 4, 2018 at 12:53 pm
                Isn't it applicable for Muslim women or not ?
                1. bhavin gupta
                  Feb 4, 2018 at 9:17 pm
                  No its not applicable for Muslim woman
                2. Bina P
                  Feb 4, 2018 at 9:27 am
                  This judgement will create more issues with girl child as when it comes to equality men and women are both equal but when it comes to spend money for house or treatment of parents , give full time to lookafter parents son has to do all this is not fair. This judgement is not a fair judgment as it is not clear about the responsibilities of doughter for their parents.
                  1. Ganesh Kumar Sadhanala
                    Feb 4, 2018 at 2:21 am
                    Bank loan clearing. House Maintaines. Taking care of parents. Sister marriage expenses House tax water tax every thing. Son takes responsibility. After all. Sister comes. And takes 50 he will be fool no 1
                    1. Catherine Masterson Harvey
                      Feb 4, 2018 at 1:24 am
                      My parents’ house needs repairs and cleaning. Then my older brother needs to move out so I can sell the house. Then we settle the remaining loan and give some money to both brothers. Plus get funeral expenses paid for my parents and older brother. A possible group home for the oldest brother or apartment. Then get rid of the dog and cat and turtle.
                      1. Orpah Daruwala
                        Feb 3, 2018 at 10:21 pm
                        Meninists are getting butthurt 😂
                        1. Muhammed Raees Shamsuddin
                          Feb 4, 2018 at 1:37 am
                          But they all got points in their statements
                        2. Alpha S
                          Feb 3, 2018 at 9:24 pm
                          Have nothing against this judgement, but its ironical that in this matter men ane women are treated equally, whereas in the matter related to whether rape should be a gender neutral crime, men and womeny have been treated so differently :( :(
                          1. Useurhead Sumwerelse
                            Feb 3, 2018 at 8:10 pm
                            Give the daughters 50 percent responsibility of the parents as she becomes capable of earning money, pass a bill for this, and then make it cmplsry that they give enough time and attention as well. Maa baap ke marne ke baad hak mangne aa jao..mazak chalra hai
                            1. Himanshu Arora
                              Feb 3, 2018 at 3:40 pm
                              idots rule banana mein unke baap ka kya jata hair, democracy is more worst than Chinese communist rule koi law development and anticorruption related Toh banate Nahi hain bas women empowerment ke naampar 50percent population keep vote chaiye. Aajkal ki aurat ko sati savatri samajhte hai jabki woh theke par jakar alcohol buy karti hai
                              1. Load More Comments

                              Go to Top