Skip to main content

Girls born before 2005 too have equal rights to jointly-owned property - Bombay high court

The Bombay high court has clarified that a change in law in 2005 to bring daughters on a par with sons over rights to joint family property can be applied retrospectively.

Daughters born any time earlier than September 9, 2005, are entitled to equal rights for inheritance of jointly-owned family property, the court held on Thursday.

The judgment delivered by a three-judge bench of Chief Justice Mohit Shah, Justice M S Sanklecha and Justice M S Sonak has freed a large number of Hindu women from the son-centric heirship laws that existed till 2005. Now, they will get a share in properties worth crores of rupees in the city.

The judgment said that equality would now apply to even girls born prior to 1956, when the Hindu Succession Act first came into effect, but hadn't given daughters equal rights which sons enjoyed since birth over joint family property. In September 2005, a progressive amendment to the Succession Act conferred equal inheritance rights at birth even to daughters over joint family property. But daughters, the HC clarified are entitled to these equal rights only if they were alive and such property existed as joint family property in September 2005, when the amendment came into force.

The high court said that all daughters born any time earlier but alive as on September 9, 2005, have equal rights as sons, but heirs of daughters who died before that date do not get any benefit under the law.

The question before the bench in a clutch of cases was whether the 2005 law could be retroactive. The issue was referred to the larger bench by a single judge of the high court in June. Justice R G Ketkar had doubted the correctness of a conflicting finding by a two-judge bench earlier in 2012. The division bench had held that the equality to daughters would be available only prospectively to those born after September 2005.

Ram Apte, senior counsel appearing for a woman born prior to 2005 who was fighting with her brothers for partition of a joint property, had argued that the modified law had to be treated as applicable without a cut-off date and that a daughter's rights at birth must be recognized retroactively as if they existed when the succession laws were first legislated in June 1956.

The high court said, "In cases of socio-economic legislations, like the one we are concerned with, we must apply the purposive rule of interpretation to find out the true meaning of the statute."

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Girls-born-before-2005-too-have-equal-rights-to-jointly-owned-property-says-Bombay-high-court/articleshow/40311617.cms

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even