[19/06, 9:26 am] Jacob Samuel: Supreme Court has clarified that the Hindu succession act (2005) includes daughters who were born prior to the date of the introduction of the law as well

[19/06, 9:29 am] Jacob Samuel: amended Hindu Succession Act of 2005 stipulated that a daughter would be a 'coparcener' since birth, and have the 'same rights and liabilities' as a son.

With the coming of the Hindu succession act in 2005, daughters got equal rights in their ancestral assets. Last week, the Supreme Court clarified that the law applies to all daughters, irrespective of whether they were born before or after the coming of the law.

Who is a coparcener?

A coparcener is the one who shares equally in the inheritance of an undivided property.

What exactly did the court say?

The court said that her (a daughter's) share in ancestral property could not be denied 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 said:

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

It added that the law was amended to give daughters equal status to sons' in property matters. The bench added that:

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

[19/06, 9:37 am] Leslie Boby Adv: Yes this right

[19/06, 9:37 am] Leslie Boby Adv: It just say whether she was born hindu sucession act 1955 or hindu sucession act 20p5

[19/06, 9:38 am] Leslie Boby Adv: It just say whether she was born hindu sucession act 1955 or hindu sucession act 2005

[19/06, 9:38 am] Leslie Boby Adv: Still she can inherit property aame as brother

[19/06, 9:39 am] Leslie Boby Adv: If she was born on 1956 act and she come hindu sucession 2005 it still accepted

[19/06, 9:39 am] Leslie Boby Adv: According this judgement

[19/06, 9:40 am] Jacob Samuel: As per my openin she us entitled to the share and High court judgment is correct.

We should make some point against it formoot purpose

[19/06, 9:40 am] Leslie Boby Adv: The marital status of the daughter is immaterial, and a married daughter has the same rights as an unmarried one. However, it is important to note that if the father died before 2005, a married daughter will not have any right over ancestral property, while the self-acquired property will be distributed as per the will. So, if your father died before 2005, you will have no right over ancestral property, but if he died after 2005, you have a legal claim over it.

[19/06, 9:40 am] Leslie Boby Adv: This a good point only

[19/06, 9:40 am] Leslie Boby Adv: To go against

[19/06, 9:41 am] Leslie Boby Adv: I found a case of prakash vs phiulavati& ors is same as the respondent situation where father died before 2005. Then she has no share in the ANCESTRAL property

[19/06, 9:41 am] Leslie Boby Adv: I am still reading this case

[19/06, 9:46 am] Leslie Boby Adv: But according to prakash vs phulavati ors case it says phulavathi will get the share from self aquired property according to the will of the father , if there is a will , if no will all remaining will get equal shares. Here no will. It means if there is any self acquired property she will get equal share as the son

[19/06, 9:52 am] Leslie Boby Adv: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/143363828/

[19/06, 9:52 am] Leslie Boby Adv: Points 7,14 and 24

[19/06, 9:54 am] Leslie Boby Adv: Read 8 what I understand from the facts. Deceased 1 (father) , A1 and A2 expanded the property. 1. Two shops in shimla 2. 3. And 4.. Now the question is , is this self aquired property? If it is self aquired property , whatever father have acquired the daughter will get a share according to1956 act whether married or not. only on what father acquired , not on brothers acquired. Then we need to check further with evidence which properties father bought so that daughter get a share

[19/06, 10:08 am] Leslie Boby Adv: This is an appeal given by the brothers in the supreme court because the the respondent after 2005 amendment act put a suit for partion (read the 14. Facts a , b, c) and the HC approved. Then we look at these claims only and the appellant reply. 1/3 rd share is not in the respondents claim from the mother after 2005

[19/06, 10:26 am] Jacob Samuel: Who gave this points

[19/06, 10:28 am] Jacob Samuel: Brothers appellants added new properties is iit in their name or as joint family property

[19/06, 10:50 am] Leslie Boby Adv: Not sure. It says D1(father) and brothers added more properties. Then she has share only on the self aquired property of father not brothers. I hFind a case law supporting this

[19/06, 11:09 am] Leslie Boby Adv: Sure uncle.I still doing that.I still revising class 1 heir and copacentary property

[19/06, 11:09 am] Leslie Boby Adv: I think they a proximity rule

[19/06, 11:09 am] Leslie Boby Adv: Copacentary property what I remember.The closer the relation.That person inherit property.

[19/06, 11:10 am] Leslie Boby Adv: It like brother and sister father more close.He give property them not his relatives

[19/06, 11:11 am] Leslie Boby Adv: Class 1 heir som of preadeased son of predeceased son.The first one inherit.Son of dead son son of dead son

[19/06, 11:12 am] Leslie Boby Adv: They a proximity rule

[19/06, 11:12 am] Leslie Boby Adv: It just the closer relation the person get property

[19/06, 11:14 am] Jacob Samuel: · Coparcenary is a term used in matters related to Hindu Succession Law. It refers to a person who has the capacity to assume a legal right in his ancestral property by birth. It means 'unity of title, possession and interest'.

[19/06, 11:17 am] Leslie Boby Adv: I do not think you get from paternal grandfather

[19/06, 11:17 am] Leslie Boby Adv: Because generation far away

[19/06, 11:17 am] Leslie Boby Adv: This what I rememeber

[19/06, 11:18 am] Leslie Boby Adv: Whenever a child born he has right his ancestral property

[19/06, 11:19 am] Leslie Boby Adv: Ancestral property just mean grand father or parents or 3 generation old grandfather.

[19/06, 11:22 am] Leslie Boby Adv: Yes they two school dahabhya school and mistakshra scholl

[19/06, 11:22 am] Leslie Boby Adv: They different society flow different tradition.Let ke try remember which school for kerala

[19/06, 11:30 am] Jacob Samuel: By virtue of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, the daughters of a family, who are governed by Mitakshara Law, can now be recognized as coparceners in the Coparcenary property. The said Amendment further, by virtue of the amended Section 6(1)(a) and (b) gave them equal rights as the sons.

[19/06, 11:32 am] Jacob Samuel: According to Mitakshara law in the North, whenever a partition takes place between father and son, the wife of the father should be given a share equal to that of a son. It needs to be emphasized that a female member cannot demand partition.

[19/06, 11:34 am] Jacob Samuel: What are the Characteristic Features of Mitakshara Coparcenary?

Article shared by

Characteristic features of Mitakshara Coparcenary are as follows:

In State Bank of India v. Ghamandi Ram, the Supreme Court observed: “A coparcenary under the Mitakshara School is a creation of law and cannot arise by act of parties except in so far that on adoption the adopted son becomes a coparcener with his adoptive father as regards ancestral properties of the latter. The incidents of coparcenership under Mitakshara law are:

[19/06, 11:34 am] Jacob Samuel: (i) First, the lineal male descendants of a person upto third generation, acquire on birth ownership in the ancestral properties of such person,

(ii) Secondly, that such descendants can at any time work out their rights by asking for partition;

(iii) Thirdly, that till partition, each member has got ownership extending over the entire property conjointly with the rest;

(iv) Fourthly, that as a result of such co-ownership the possession and enjoyment of properties is common

[19/06, 11:35 am] Jacob Samuel: (v) Fifthly, no alienation of the property is possible unless it be necessity, without the concurrence of the coparceners;

(vi) Sixthly, that the interest of the deceased member lapses on his death to the survivors;”

The following are the characteristic features of the Mitakshara coparcenary:

[19/06, 11:37 am] Jacob Samuel: ) Exclusion of Females:

In Mitakshara coparcenary no female can be its members, though they are members of joint family. Even the wife who is entitled to maintenance enjoys only the right to maintenance but she can never become a coparcener.

Thus a female does not have the right to demand partition. Since she is not a coparcener, she cannot become the Karta of the family. An alienation of the property of the joint family by her will not be binding on her sons and daughters. The alienation of her own share is not binding upon herself.

It is worthwhile to mention that the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937, conferred a special status on the widow and made them eligible to inherit the coparcenary interest along with her sons, although she took it as a limited estate. Thus she acquired the status like that of coparcener entitled to a share, equal to that of her sons. For example, A who constitutes a coparcenary with his two sons, namely, В and C, dies leaving behind his widow, W, two sons, В and C. Under the Hindu Woman’s Right to Property Act, 1937, W inherited the coparcenary property along with В and С and would get 1/3 share each.

(5) Devolution by Survivorship:

One of the distinctive features of coparcenary is that the coparcenary interest of a coparcener in coparcenary property on his death does not devolve on his heirs by succession but on the other hand it passes by survivorship to the other coparceners. Thus right by birth and right of survivorhsip are necessary incidents of community of interest and unity of ownership, which signify joint possession not an exclusive possession.

(6) Right of Maintenance:

All the members of coparcenary are entitled to maintenance by birth out of joint family property. They continue to enjoy this right so long the coparcenary subsists. Where any member fails to get any share on the coparcenary property even after partition he retains the right of maintenance.

Some special provisions have to be made for them at the time of partition. Female members and other male members who do not get a share on partition such

[19/06, 11:42 am] Jacob Samuel: Prepare a detailed note on all this

You can get ample substance to defend🙏🙏

[19/06, 11:43 am] Leslie Boby Adv: You have commentary

[19/06, 11:43 am] Leslie Boby Adv: Cool

[19/06, 1:06 pm] Leslie Boby Adv: Uncle I cannot see picture not clear

[19/06, 1:06 pm] Leslie Boby Adv: I tell what I know mitakashra school.what I remember during my 2 year

[19/06, 1:07 pm] Leslie Boby Adv: Is that

[19/06, 1:07 pm] Leslie Boby Adv: Two law school are there hindu family

[19/06, 1:07 pm] Leslie Boby Adv: School very ritual family divided

[19/06, 1:09 pm] Leslie Boby Adv: Mitakshtra school is applicable this case not dahabhaga school because are people who north indian,jammu and Kashmir Up govern by mitakshtra law

[19/06, 1:11 pm] Leslie Boby Adv: Now dahabhaga school it governed by bengali ,kerala .It for south Indian

[19/06, 1:12 pm] Leslie Boby Adv: Different between society

[19/06, 1:12 pm] Leslie Boby Adv: Now dahabhaga school is matriarchal scoiety

[19/06, 1:13 pm] Leslie Boby Adv: Now the concept is that

[19/06, 1:13 pm] Leslie Boby Adv: This moot problem that

[19/06, 1:13 pm] Leslie Boby Adv: This school only mitakshtra school applicable if judge ask what school applicable

[19/06, 1:13 pm] Leslie Boby Adv: Because these people from himchal pradesh

[19/06, 1:14 pm] Leslie Boby Adv: Mitaksha school is patriarchal society

[19/06, 1:14 pm] Leslie Boby Adv: Now see the moot court problem.

[19/06, 1:15 pm] Leslie Boby Adv: Mitaksha school.If father die intestate without making will

[19/06, 1:16 pm] Leslie Boby Adv: The closest person will be son.He will inherit because it patriarchal society. The son will become the karat after father die.Maybe he get shares and I win case this way maybe.If say this

[19/06, 1:21 pm] Leslie Boby Adv: Now dahabhaga school is matriarchal society.Lady rule.She will become karta first when die father not son

[19/06, 1:23 pm] Leslie Boby Adv: But ,mitaksha school still the son given first preference become karta eventhough after amendment right daughter get property.Now after that the next son become karta.

[19/06, 1:25 pm] Leslie Boby Adv: Son has no right of self acquired property of father until father give him.

[19/06, 1:27 pm] Leslie Boby Adv: Judge ask under which law you governed.If I north indian.I say mitaksha school.now the karta this case will be any of those appellant.I am not sure which because both different age.Maybe the oldest one.

[19/06, 1:29 pm] Leslie Boby Adv: This what I remember my teacher explain me about the schools

[19/06, 1:29 pm] Leslie Boby Adv: Uncle sent me clear picture of the school.It not clear

[19/06, 2:19 pm] Jacob Samuel: The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005) was enacted to remove gender discriminatory provisions in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Under the amendment, the daughter of a coparcener shall by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son.

[19/06, 2:20 pm] Jacob Samuel: 🌈Second, it proposes to omit section 23 of the original Act, which disentitles a female heir to ask for partition in respect of a dwelling house, wholly occupied by a joint family, until the male heirs choose to divide their respective shares therein.

[19/06, 2:21 pm] Jacob Samuel: 🌈Until the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was amended in 2005, the property rights of sons and daughters were different. While sons had complete right over their father's property, daughters enjoyed this right only until they got married. After marriage, a daughter was supposed to become part of her husband's family.

[19/06, 2:22 pm] Jacob Samuel: 🌈The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. ... It was essentially meant for removing gender discriminatory provisions regarding property rights in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It was a revolutionary step in the field of Indian legislation regarding rights of women in India.

[19/06, 2:25 pm] Jacob Samuel: 🌈🌈Women, since the vedic times were dominated because of the she is women. She can only live life under her husband, father, sons etc. but after certain changes in law women get various rights & privileges for living with dignity under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. In ancient time women does not having any kind of share or ownership in fathers property because the domination of male in succession e.g. male is the head of the joint family & therefore he holds the rights to ancestral property. Hindu Succession Act 1956 originally did not gave inheritance rights in ancestral property but ask for a right to sustained/maintain from Hindu Joint family. Most effect was done in status of women in his father’s property after the Hindu Succession Act 2005 this amendment try to maintain Article 14, 15, & 21 of the constitution of India. There are certain provisions of Hindu Succession Act 1956 amended by Hindu Succession Act 2005 after this amendment various issues raised regarding interest of women in ancestral property and whether this amendment Act having a Prospective effect or Retrospective effect upon this issue Judiciary Court gave excellent interpretation or explanation for prospective effect.

[19/06, 2:26 pm] Jacob Samuel: All the above 👆🏽👆🏽👆🏽are against our side

[19/06, 2:32 pm] Jacob Samuel: Find out some points

Like.

A memorandum was made between them to share property.

2.a major property was accured by the sons.