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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...

Difference Between Sale Of 'Corporate Debtor As A Going Concern' And Sale Of 'Business Of The Corporate Debtor As A Going Concern'

Citation : M.S. Viswanathan, Liquidator of Gemini Communication Limited vs Pixtronic Global Technologies Pvt. Ltd,  IA/1215/CHE/2021 in CP/699/IB/2017 Date of Judgment/Order : 15/2/22 Court/Tribunal : National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench I, Chennai Corum : R. Sucharitha, Member (Judicial), Sameer Kakar, Member (Technical) Background Application was filed by the Liquidator under Regulation 32(e) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 seeking approval from the Tribunal for sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. Order Allowing the application, the NCLT went into an elaborate but useful explanation of the entire law behind the term 'Going Concern'. NCLT observed that  the term 'going concern' means all such assets and the liabilities, which constitute an integral business or the Corporate Debtor, that must be transferred together, and the consideration must be for the business or the Corporate Debtor. The buyer of the assets and liabilitie...