Since its history, India has been the land of discrimination for women against its male counterparts. Daughter's parents should be forced to pay huge amounts to marry their daughters or they want to kill them by Brahmin pandits who want to snatch away all the property left by her husband.
If nothing is there, then we should thank the British for helping us reduce the fate of the daughters of our country by removing the bad practice of 'Sati'. However, after several years of our constitution, that talks about equality and discrimination on the basis of gender; Laws of inheritance in our country still discriminate with the rights of the daughter of their father's property against their brothers.
In Hinduism, among the other sects, the following two groups are extremely important
Mittakshara law has been more discriminatory of daughter's property rights against Daybhaga School.
With his son, his father and his two descendants are considered as 'coparceners' of joint family property. But, according to the Daybhaga law, sons do not take any such interest from birth. Their rights are questioned only for the first time on the death of their father. At the death of his father, he takes such property as if he has been released by him, even if he or she is an ancestor in the form of heirs, not surviving. Since sons do not take any interest in their ancestral property during their father's life, therefore there can be no transcript in the strict sense between father and son.
In Mithakshara school, daughters did not have the right to be coparceners (until 2005). Their right was limited to 'maintenance' until they were unmarried, and the 'wedding expenses' from the property of the joint family was to be completed. They had no rights in the property and therefore could not demand a division. Coparcenary was a concept for the male heir. There were also Karta of the male subject (who were the first coparceners) and also the Karta of the property of the joint family. His position did not make him eligible for any major advantage compared to the other three rivals; Each of the four linear descendants (coparcener) had equal rights.
However, Dayabhaga law was a little sympathetic to the daughters. There was no fundamental difference between a female or a man; That is, there was no coparcenary in full sense to say. In this form of school, no one had the right to property. It will be clear with the following example. If X (father) dies to leave his widow and his son; Both will get equal rights on the property. Now if the widow dies, leaving her son and son's daughter, the two assets will be collected together with the property. Son's daughter has the same right to ask for a partition as a son.
When the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was passed, in reality, there was no real change in the way of succession in the past. It rejected the Constitutional mandate under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Section 6 of the Non-Amended Act states that "When a Hindu man dies after the commencement of this Act, at the time of his death, he is interested in the property of Mittakshara, his interest in property remains alive. ... '. There was no mention of the rights of women's property.
Fortunately, with the amendment of Section 6 in 2005, the rights of daughters were finally accepted. Now it is as follows: From the beginning of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 and in a joint Hindu family ruled by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of an opponent, -
(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.
So, a lot of things have changed.
It is a doctrine that whoever does not have a coparcenary cannot become a Karta of the family; But post this amendment, because the daughter has the right to be an opponent, so she has the right to be the manager of the family and is subject to the same rights and obligations of the son.
In the case of Radha Ammal v. IT Commissioner, it was believed that the right to become a coparcener depends on the fundamental fact that the person on whom the right is a coparcener. It was believed that the rights were given to the male members of the family because female members were not considered as a coparcener. But, now, with the amendment in 2005, after reading the above situation organized by the court, a daughter, who may now be a coparcener (according to Section 6), can also be the Karta or manager.
There are some questions that need to be answered. They are as follows: -
1. What happens when a daughter is born at the time of partition but is born after that?
2. After the partition, the daughter was born and what happens when it is born?
The answer to question number 1
Yekemian V. AgniswarianIn this case, the situation in relation to the son born at the time of partition but after this, if no share was kept for him at the time of partition, then he had the right to reopen the partition and it was a stock allotted. Now, because daughters have the right to property, therefore their treatment will be the same; That is as if he was born as a son. Therefore, when he was in his mother's womb, no one was allotted it, then he could ask to open the partition again.
The answer to question number 2
In this case, if the father had reserved a portion for himself at the time of division with his other sons and daughters, then his property would be consumed on his daughter.
It is indeed surprising that how long the Center was implementing this amendment in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - some states have already got justice for the daughters of their respective states - Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra Had taken himself for and in each of the states, in Karnataka, for the purpose of removing the discriminatory characteristics of the Act, each passed law was passed.
Section 3 of the Kerala Act State removed the 'right by birth' section. Any person, whether a woman or a man can make the right claim in the property by the example of his birth. Not so far away from discrimination that daughters had been subjected for years; Because it was entirely probable and fails to provide rights to daughters in existing collective properties.
On the other hand, the Andhra Pradesh legislature gave birth rights to those daughters who are unmarried on that date when applicable to the Act.
Thus, classical mitakshara coparcenary could no longer work in these states before the central amendment. In states after mercy law; Like West Bengal, Orissa (excluding areas in southern Orissa), Assam and Tripura, the situation was not as bad, because Dayabhaga treats women and men on the same pedestal. In the states of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Karnataka, however, mitakshara kept the skeleton of the law, but by giving quality to daughters (unmarried), its discriminatory facilities were largely removed.
These amendments bounce and force daughters status in the joint family. Not only does she continue to be a coparcener after her marriage, but she also becomes part of her husband's joint family.
However, nothing gets better without problems. The researcher wants to discuss the following problems: -
1. What is the difference between daughter's right if she is married on her right, she was a Spinster?
If the daughter was born in Karnataka and married before 1990, then she will not be given any rights over her father's property. However, after the central revision of 2005, the difference between married and unmarried daughters is no longer recognized.
The court said that the lower appellate court was giving more error in reducing the part of the appellant and on the basis of the Karnataka Amendment Act of 1990, there was an opponent from the birth of a daughter, and hence the property of the police on the partition of the joint Hindu family was given to daughter. To allocate, it should be divided so much, the same part which is allocated to the son.
It was further presented that the Amendment Act was passed before the lower appeal court during the negligence of the appeal and therefore the lower appellate court had the duty to pay attention to the changes made in the law.
However, another submission was made, though the applicant's marriage was prior to 1990, still on the basis of amendment in the Principal Act by the Central Government through the Hindu Succession Act (Amendment) 2005, which distinguishes between marriage The removed daughter and the unmarried person, the appellant is treated as a competitor and therefore the lower appeal was taken by the lower court to reduce the appellant's share. The idea cannot be kept in the law.
2. Is S6 (1) (c) of Hindu Succession (Amendment Act, 2005), 1956 valid?
Other problems discussed in this matter were regarding the validity of the S6 (1) (c) of the 2005 Act; Questioning any segregation of property that occurred before 20.12.2004 prohibits the authority of the daughter of co-parceners, The problem ed by the legislature was that if they gave the daughter the right to question any segregation of the reimbursable property before 20.12.2004, then those cases would become the cause of wave and chaos of tired cases against the door of the judiciary. To bother those who had already been decided and disposed of. However, in a certain case the court was held, that if this was a mandate, then the same rule should be applied to the son's power to question such isolation; Despite the petitioner's gender, the problem ed by him will be the same.
In accordance with the self-acquired properties of the deceased, after the year of 1956, the law of succession provides equal rights to girls/daughters in succession cases. It further provides that all self-acquired properties of a Hindu dying in gestating (i.e. Will) will rely on its class I legal heirs, including daughters in the same classes. Self-acquired properties of female Hindus who die of intestines (i.e. without desire) will first be dissolved in equal shares on their sons, daughters, and husbands.
While the sons had complete control over their father's property, daughters enjoyed this right till they got married. After marriage, a daughter had to be a part of her husband's family.
Daughters' rights in Hindu Succession Act, 2005
Earlier, once a girl got married, she became a part of her father's HUF many folks saw it as some way to scale back the property rights of ladies. However, on September 9, 2005, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, that controls the division of property between Hindus, as amended. In keeping with the Hindu Succession change Act, 2005, each girl, whether or not married or single, is taken into account to be a member of her father's HUF and may be appointed because of the 'Karta' (also managed) of her HUF property. Amendments currently grant donations to daughters to equal rights, duties, liabilities, and disabilities, that were restricted to earlier sons.
However, a girl will profit of the advantages given by the change solely on the death of her father once on September 9, 2005, Additionally, the girl is eligible to be co-operative on September 9, 2005, solely once the father and girl survive, 2005.
Equal right to be coparceners
A group member consists of the largest member and three generations of the family. This may include first, for example, a son, a father, a grandfather, and a great-grandfather. Now, the women of the family can also be an opponent.
• Under coparcenary, coparceners receive authority over the property from birth. Interest and stake of policemen in the property continues to fluctuate on the basis of the number of members according to the birth and death of members.
• Both the father and self-acquired property can be a collective property. In the case of father property, it is shared equally by all the members of the colony, in the case of a volunteer, the person is free to manage the property according to his wishes.
• A member of the police can sell his share to a third party in the participant. However, such sales are subject to pre-emission rights to the remaining members of the coparcenary. The remaining members, however, have the " right of first refusal " on the property to prevent the entry of an outsider.
• A coparcener (no member) can enter a suit demand split for a property demand but not a member. Thus, the daughter, as an opponent, can now demand the division of her father's property.
In case of father's self-acquired property, he has the full right to give the property through any will. Daughter does not have legal authority over the property's self-acquired property.
When it comes to father wealth, then the case is different. Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 clearly states that daughters are given equal rights given to the son and they can become rival by birth.
Generally, there are three generations of the largest members and family in a colony. By 2005, for example, a son, a father, a grandfather, and a great-grandfather, but the women of the family were not involved. However, after the changes in Hindu Personal Laws, women of the family can also be an opponent.
In the case of ancestral property, it is shared equally by all the members of coparcenary. Apart from this, daughter, as an opponent, can now demand the division of her father's property. It is also appropriate to note, however, that a woman's copy is also subject to liabilities similar to her brothers or sons.
In addition, the Supreme Court has said that the rights under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 apply to the surviving daughters of the rivals living on September 9, 2005 (those who share the legacy of undivided property), even though he was born on September 9, 2005
Apart from this, any division of patriarch made before December 20, 2004, will be unaffected by the 2005 revision. After the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2015, the 2005 Act was repealed, but it does not affect the rights of the females from birth to being rivals.
Now Hindu women can claim their share in the father's estate even after getting married and they have the right to settle the property as per their wishes.
Under the Hindu succession, a daughter can make a right claim in a coparcener property. Both the ancestral and self-acquired property can be a collective property. In the case of father property, it is shared equally by all the members of the colony, in the case of a volunteer, the person is free to manage the property according to his wishes. Depending on the equipment used for the transfer, your mother can make the right claim in that property. If it is according to desire or gift, then there will be no validity for your claim.
According to the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, a daughter is equally valid heir as a son's property. If your grandfather gave his mother's sister a rule through a rule or another person cannot claim such property because it has already been decided.
But if it is an open system where no desire has been made by your grandfather but the plots have been transferred only verbally, then the claim of the other legal heirs of each class is legal. In case of a close will system where the decision about the transfer of property has already been deposited by the tester in the pen and paper, in that case, no one can claim the property, which has inherited the property. Heritage relates to him or her completely. If it is an open desire, then legal heirs have every chance to claim property.
Right of married daughter:-
After the arrival of change to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the parent of the married girl has equal rights within the property, that was effective from September 9, 2005.
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, originally gave daughters not equal rights to father wealth. This difference was removed by a change applied on September 9, 2005.
This issue came ahead of the bench of justice Mohit Shah of Iran, once the judges MS Sankelecha and MS Sonak, a choose and a division bench once controversial views on separate matters.
A Division Bench had aforesaid that amendments were applied to the daughters born on or once September 9, 2005.
The bench's final word:
The full bench, disagree with the fact that despite the date of the date of birth of the daughters, the father will be equal share within the property."The revised section applies before or after June 17, 1956 (daughters born between June 17, 1956, and 8 September 2005) provided they survived on November 2005, an After coming to the Bar Amendment Act 2005, the force, "the judges took halfway in seventy-two pages in their order.Now in the first case, your mother and alternate brother cannot claim this half because your grandfather gave away gifts throughout his time. However, unlike all the young people of your grandfather (i.e. your mother and three sisters and a brother), the house and the plot have equal rights on the land.
The gift of his son to his son is not part of the ancestral property, because the son is not the heir of the property on the death of the grandfather, or the grandfather is not received by division during his tenure. The right to property to sons and daughters is square measure on those qualities, square measurement is suppressed with his father and has become a patriarchal property at the hands of his father.