Source The Pioneer
aiming share in their father’s ancestral property have a reason to cheer. In a landmark judgement, the Supreme Court has held that they will be entitled to an equal share in their father’s estate even if such cases were adversely settled against them before 2005 when the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was amended, or by any other law.
The case relates to a woman from Karnataka who was denied equal share in her father’s property. The petitioner Prema had relied on the Karnataka Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 1990, by which unmarried daughters became entitled to equal share as sons in father’s estate in the absence of a will.
But the Act came into force on July 30, 1994 by when a preliminary decree passed by a Munsif court at Srirangapatna on August 11, 1992 decided her share in the ancestral property to be one-twenty-eight part. Prema claimed two-seventh part of the property under the new law. Both the trial court and the Karnataka High Court rejected her claim on the ground that her fate was sealed with the trial court decree. But the apex court saw reason to accept her appeal.
A Bench of Justices GS Singhvi and KSP Radhakrishnan said, “By the preliminary decree, shares of the parties were determined but the actual partition or division had not taken place.”
It noted that the petitioner sought benefit of a law when the decree passed by lower court was not yet final. “If law governing the parties is amended before conclusion of the final decree proceedings, the party benefited by such amendment can make a request to the court to take cognisance of the amendment and give effect to the same,” the Bench added.
This decision assumes significance since the ruling would have a bearing across the country after the Centre amended the Hindu Succession Act 1956 providing equal property rights to daughters (married or unmarried) in family property.
Since the amended law came into force at a time when the final decree of partition was yet to be passed, the court said, “The appellant had every right to seek enlargement of her share by pointing out that the discrimination practiced against the unmarried daughter had been removed by the legislative intervention and there is no reason why the court should hesitate in giving effect to an amendment made by the State legislature.”
On the scope of Section 6A of the Karnataka Act, the Bench said that it aimed to enlarge the ambit of benefits to unmarried daughters. Applying this thought to the case at hand, the Bench said, “With a view to achieve the goal of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution and to eliminate discrimination against daughters.” It gave Prema permission to move an appropriate application under the amended Act to claim a higher share of property to remove the discrimination and to bring it in conformity with Articles 14 and 15 of Constitution. http://www.dailypioneer.com/340582/Women-entitled-to-father%E2%80%99s-estate-SC.htmlhttp://www.dailypioneer.com/340582/Women-entitled-to-father%E2%80%99s-estate-SC.htmlhttp://www.dailypioneer.com/340582/Women-entitled-to-father%E2%80%99s-estate-SC.html
Sphere: Related Content
aiming share in their father’s ancestral property have a reason to cheer. In a landmark judgement, the Supreme Court has held that they will be entitled to an equal share in their father’s estate even if such cases were adversely settled against them before 2005 when the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was amended, or by any other law.
The case relates to a woman from Karnataka who was denied equal share in her father’s property. The petitioner Prema had relied on the Karnataka Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 1990, by which unmarried daughters became entitled to equal share as sons in father’s estate in the absence of a will.
But the Act came into force on July 30, 1994 by when a preliminary decree passed by a Munsif court at Srirangapatna on August 11, 1992 decided her share in the ancestral property to be one-twenty-eight part. Prema claimed two-seventh part of the property under the new law. Both the trial court and the Karnataka High Court rejected her claim on the ground that her fate was sealed with the trial court decree. But the apex court saw reason to accept her appeal.
A Bench of Justices GS Singhvi and KSP Radhakrishnan said, “By the preliminary decree, shares of the parties were determined but the actual partition or division had not taken place.”
It noted that the petitioner sought benefit of a law when the decree passed by lower court was not yet final. “If law governing the parties is amended before conclusion of the final decree proceedings, the party benefited by such amendment can make a request to the court to take cognisance of the amendment and give effect to the same,” the Bench added.
This decision assumes significance since the ruling would have a bearing across the country after the Centre amended the Hindu Succession Act 1956 providing equal property rights to daughters (married or unmarried) in family property.
Since the amended law came into force at a time when the final decree of partition was yet to be passed, the court said, “The appellant had every right to seek enlargement of her share by pointing out that the discrimination practiced against the unmarried daughter had been removed by the legislative intervention and there is no reason why the court should hesitate in giving effect to an amendment made by the State legislature.”
On the scope of Section 6A of the Karnataka Act, the Bench said that it aimed to enlarge the ambit of benefits to unmarried daughters. Applying this thought to the case at hand, the Bench said, “With a view to achieve the goal of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution and to eliminate discrimination against daughters.” It gave Prema permission to move an appropriate application under the amended Act to claim a higher share of property to remove the discrimination and to bring it in conformity with Articles 14 and 15 of Constitution. http://www.dailypioneer.com/340582/Women-entitled-to-father%E2%80%99s-estate-SC.htmlhttp://www.dailypioneer.com/340582/Women-entitled-to-father%E2%80%99s-estate-SC.htmlhttp://www.dailypioneer.com/340582/Women-entitled-to-father%E2%80%99s-estate-SC.html
Posts
gurukulam
No comments:
Post a Comment