Daughters have equal share in self acquired property of deceased father under provisions of hindu succession act

2) better to arrive at an amicable settlement with the aunts

3) mutation in revenue records does not confer title to property

4) oral partition made by sons can be challenged by their sisters . it was done without their consent and is not binding upon them . sisters have not executed any relinquishment deed or gift deed for their share in property

Hello,

Yes the daughters do have right on the said property, if the same is not an ancestral property. Note that an ancestral property is one which remains undivided for four generations.

Though you may take the defense of adverse possession and say that the claim is highly delayed and therefore is non sustainable in the eyes of law.

Regards

1. Was it your father's self acquired property?.

2. Did your father die intestate (without executing a WILL)?.

3. In view of latest Supreme Court judgement in respect of Amendment to Hindu Succession Act, it has been ordered by the SC that a Hindu woman will be entitled for equal share in the ancestral property along with her brothers whether it is after the year 2005 or before 2005.

A daughter can avail of the benefits granted by the amendment only if her father passed away after September 9, 2005. Also, the daughter is eligible to be a co-sharer only if the father and the daughter were alive on September 9, 2005.

So for the partition prior to 2005 between brothers would now won't be impacted.

Dear Client,

By virtue of Hindu Succession Act, daughters have equal share in the property i.e. 1/7 each.

But brothers are in possession since the death of father. So by theory of Adverse Possession, brother`s have acquired title of actual owner in sisters share.

Also, suit is barred by Limitation -

106. Limitation Act.

For a legacy or for a share of a residue bequeathed by a testator or for a distributive share of the property of an intestate against an executor or an administrator or an administrator or some other person legally charged with the duty of distributing the estate.

Twelve years

When the legacy or share becomes payable or deliverable.

Yes these daughters have right to share in ancestral property.

Dear Sir

Is there any partition deed or any other documents show that there is partition.

As of now information daughters not have right. The documents needs to be verified for right opinion. Feel free to reach out us for further details.

Whatever is the position in 1990 at the time of the death of father will remain.

The partition of the family property among the sons can be challenged by the aggrieved party for inclusion of their shares in the inherent property of the father at the time of partition of the family property the consent of the sisters would have been taken to divide the property among the brothers so as to in future they should not have any right on the ancestral property no there is only one way left that there should be a compromise between brothers and sisters to hold the existing position.

All the daughters have share in fathers property as per recent ruling of supreme court but in your case limitation for claiming partition is 12 years which has elapsed so that case is barred by law.

1) No, don't file suit as they do not have any rights on the property. The time has been lapsed according to Limitation Act, 1963. For this please read suit to file for immovable property in schedule.

64.

For possession of immovable property based on previous possession and not on title, when the plaintiff while in possession of the property has been dispossessed.

Twelve years

The date of dispossession

Dear Sir,

All the daughters/sisters are entitled for shares equally with that of sons in the ancestral properties, irrespective their marriage dates. Recently the Supreme Court held that even daughters born before 1956 are entitled for equal share, same is as follows. For more clarification you may visit my office so as to take effective defense in the case filed by sisters saying that they have been given their shares in the form of gold and jewelry etc., during their respective marriages.

1. Oral partition is no partition. Furthermore, entry in revenue records does not create any title over the said land.

2. The date of marriage of daughters is immaterial to their rights in the property of their father. If the father died intestate then his property devolved through intestate succession on all his children including daughters equally. The daughters should succeed in getting their share.

If this agricultural land was ancestral in nature, daughters do not have a share in this.

Yes. They do have share.

The daughters have rights in the property and there is no limitation to file partition suit.

The three sons should have obtained a registered release deed from all the four daughters relinquishing their rights in the property that belonged to their decesed father.

Even now they can amicably solve the issue by giving them money in lieu of their shares in the properties if they agree for that and they may be asked to execute a registered release deed ratifying the partition of the three sons of their deceased father.

In several cases as well as specific cases related to the validity of the oral partition, it has been held that the oral partition is valid by virtue of S.9 of the TP Act. Before HS law 2005 amendment, daughters were not treated as coparceners and therefore had no right on par with the sons and cannot demand partition.