· A.N Kaul Vs Neerja Kaul 2018 DHC
· Ashnoor Singh Vs Harpal Kaur 2019 SC
· Vineeta Sharma Vs Rakesh Sharma 2020 SC
· Prakash Vs Phoolavati SC
· Mangamal vs T.B Raju SC
· Danamma Vs Amar SC
· Shreya Vidyarthi Vs Ashok Vidyarthi, 2015 SC
There are two types of properties in Hindu and Sikh personal law i.e. Separate and Ancestral property. In layman terms, ancestral property means a property which was owned by the ancestors of the propositus or the property purchased by the senior most male member of the family from the proceeds of the ancestral property which was sold earlier. However, in legal terms we divide it into the era before coming up of Hindu Succession Act 1956 and after coming up of Hindu Succession Act 1956. In the case of A.N Kaul Vs Neerja Kaul 2018 DHC and Ashnoor Singh Vs Harpal Kaur 2019 SC, the Hon’ble courts clarified the definition ancestral property. Before the coming up of Hindu Succession Act 1956, if any person would have inherited a property from his Father, Grandfather or Great Grandfather, then automatically it would be the ancestral property of the said person. However, after coming up of Hindu Succession Act 1956, if the Hindu Undivided Family exists and then the person inherits the property from his Father, Grandfather or Great Grandfather only then it shall be an ancestral property, otherwise it shall be the separate property of the heir. In the ancestral property every coparcener has its birthright, before 2005 Amendment Act of the Hindu Succession Act, the daughter was not a coparcener, but now she is one. She has a birthright in the ancestral property if there has been no partition in the family and the Hindu Undivided Family still exists.
In the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs Rakesh Sharma 2020 SC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court entailed that after the coming up of 2005 amendment act, the daughter is now a coparcener and holds equal rights to her male counterparts. This right of her shall be operational retroactively, that is she should be alive on 09.09.2005, the date when the 2005 Amendment Act was came into force. Prakash Vs Phoolavati, Mangamal Vs. T.B Raju and Danamma Vs Amar, all these three decisions of Hon’ble SC have been overruled, which stated otherwise. It was also entailed that for her right to be operational, there is no requirement for her father to be alive at that point. The only requirement is that the Hindu Joint Family should exist and she should be alive on 09.09.2005. In the Case of Shreya Vidyarthi Vs Ashok Vidyarthi, 2015, the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that a widow is a coparcener in her father’s family, not in her husband’s family.
The Widow cannot claim share in the ancestral property of her husband, unless she gets a share in the same by way of intestate or testamentary succession, by someone who has a share in the ancestral property and is capable of conveying that share. The Main objective of 2005 Amendment Act was to move a step towards gender parity which is in line with the Constitutional Spirit of Article 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution.
Комментарии