HINDU SUCCESSION ACT ,1956

 Hey everyone to all of you and welcome to LEGAL GYAAN BLOG .Today i want to share the one of the recent judgement  of supreme court 2020 and i will try my best to explain you in a very easy manner which you will understand better. So lets begins

DAUGHTER'S RIGHTS TO PROPERTY:-

According to the Hindu succession act 1956,there are two types of property acquired by an individual are as follows:-

1.ANCESTRAL PROPERTY

2.SELF ACQUIRED PROPERTY

The main problem of Ancestral property is that is partial to daughters .why i am saying partial because before Hindu succession Act 1956 the right to property was fully enjoyed by son and not daughters as a class 1 heirs.

Hindu succession Act 1956 major problem in Ancestral property is that ,son, grandson, great grand son  are considered as  copasner rights on property and not wife or daughter

Let us understand the survivor rule:-

1.One males are copasner as per section-6 of Hindu succession Act 1956.

Understanding the crux of 2005 amendment:-

TESTAMENTARY RIGHTS:-

Will can only be made in beneficiary to Son, then comes daughter, and then anyone can be benefited

INTERSTATE RIGHTS:-

Problems comes when person died without will.

so that time will can be automatically transfer to certain class from 1 to 4

1.widow 

2.son

3.daughter

 But in 2005 amendment says:-

1.Daughters are co-pasner in property rights since birth.

2.Daughter will have equal liability.

ENFORCEMENT DATE OF HINDU SUCCESSION ACT 2005 IS 9 SEPTEMBER 2005.

Problem arises was that, from this enforce date  father should be alive is necessary or not?

let us understand with the help of case laws:-

1.Case :-PRAKASH V.PHOOLWATI (2016)

BENCH-JUSTICE ANIL DAWE AND A.K. GOYAL

In this case S.C. says that father should be alive from this enforced date to implement on it.Father should alive is necessary.

2.Case :-Dannama v. Amar

BENCH:-JUSTICE A.K SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN 

In this case S.C. says that father alive is not necessary, if he died before 2005 so even daughter is also copasner in property rights to inherit.

So after this 1st and 2nd case are conflicting to each other and start confusion that what should follow .So to resolve such problems there is an another case is follow:-

3.Case:-Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020)

BENCH:-JUSTICE  Arun Mishra,  ABDUL NAZIR AND MR.SHAH

Here Supreme Court says , that women has a right on Ancestral Property is by birth .No matter that father is alive or not.

AND THAT IS CALLED A LANDMARK JUDGEMENT !

HOPE YOU REALLY LIKED MY NOTES AND MY EXPLANATION IN SHORT WAY .

SO IF YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE THAN LIKE,COMMENT,SUBSCRIBE THE BLOG FOR MORE UPDATES