Skip to main content

Sons and Daughters Rights in Father's Property

 Children as coparceners (a person who shares equally in the inheritance of an undivided property) have certain rights over their father’s property including right in ancestral property by birth; a right to survivorship i.e. the right to divide the share among rest if one of the coparceners dies along with the right to sell their share of the property to anyone they want and so on. These rights have been provided to the coparceners under the Indian succession law and may vary based on different circumstances, sometimes even resulting in a denial of a share in the property. The circumstances have been dealt with below in detail in relation to a son’s and a daughter’s right to inherit the father’s property.


Connect with an expert lawyer for your legal issue

 


Rights of Sons in Father’s Property

Under the Hindu Succession Law, a property for the purpose of inheritance has been divided into an ancestral and self-acquired property and the rights related to each of these also differ.

 

Rights of sons if the property is ancestral

When the property is ancestral, inheritance rights to sons accrues by the time of birth as a son is a joint owner of ancestral property. A son also holds a right to file a partition suit for his rightful share in the property and can ask for the same during the lifetime of his father. Moreover, he can sell his share in the ancestral property to any third person even before the formal partition of the property has taken place.


Rights of sons if the property is self-acquired

In case of a self-acquired property, the father has a right to gift or Will the property to anyone he deems fit, and the daughter cannot raise an objection over such transfer. Thus, if the property is a self-acquired property of the father and he has gifted or willed such property to someone by his own will, without any coercion, undue influence, fraud or misrepresentation, a right cannot be claimed over the property.


Consult: Top Property Lawyers in India

 


Rights of Daughters in Father’s Ancestral Property

Earlier, only male members of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) had a right over the ancestral property. However, after the amendment made to the Hindu Succession Act in the year 2005, a Hindu female has an equal right in an ancestral property as that of a Hindu male. By the said amendment, women were also made coparceners in the HUF setup.


Whereas, a self-acquired property has been defined as a property purchased by an individual from his own resources or through any property he acquired from his share in an ancestral property. An owner of a self-acquired property has all the rights to dispose of a self-acquired property in any manner he deems fit, and the legal heirs will not be able to raise an objection.


The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 that came into effect from 9th September 2005 has removed provisions that were discriminatory towards Hindu daughter’s inheritance rights and has given equal coparcenary rights to them as sons. In addition to this, a married Hindu daughter also has a right of residence in her father’s house if she is deserted, divorced or widowed.


Further, until recently, the rights guaranteed to daughters under the 2005 amendment were considered to be applicable only to cases where a woman’s father was alive as on 09.09.2005 (i.e. the date on which the amendment was brought into force). This meant that women whose fathers died before 09.09.2005 were denied the coparcenary rights guaranteed by the 2005 amendment.


After various differing opinions within the Indian judiciary on the issue of retrospective applicability of the amendment, the Supreme Court recently in August 2020 brought finality on the matter and made the amendment applicable retrospectively to all cases irrespective to the date of 09.09.2005. This final move has completely eliminated any discrimination between the rights of daughters and sons to their father’s property under the Act.


Connect with an expert lawyer for your legal issue

 


Can a father gift a property to his son?

In a recent case, the Supreme Court held that a property that was gifted by a father to his son could not be counted as an ancestral property simply because he got it from his father. The court stated that the property of the grandfather can be held as the father’s ancestral property.


There are only two conditions under which the father would get the property, one being that he inherits the property after his father dies or in case the fathers’ father had made a partition during his lifetime. However, when the father obtains the grandfather’s property by way of gift, it is not considered an ancestral property. Sons and daughters don’t have any claim on the said property gifted by the grandfather.


A gift from the father to his son is not a part of the ancestral property as the son does not inherit the property on the death of the grandfather or receive it by partition made by the grandfather during his lifetime. The grandson has no legal right on such a property because his grandfather chose to bestow a favor on his father which he could have bestowed on any other person as well.


Thus, the interest which he takes in such a property must depend upon the will of the grantor and therefore, when the son has got the property from his father as a gift, his other sons or daughters cannot claim any part in it calling it an ancestral property. He can alienate the gifted property to anyone he likes and in any way he likes. Such a property is treated as a self-acquired property, provided there is no expressed intention in the deed of the gift by the grandfather while gifting the property to his son.


Consult: Top Property Lawyers in India

 


Certain disqualifications to rights of inheritance under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956

The Hindu Succession Act under Sections 24 to 28 provide for certain cases where an heir may be disqualified from inheriting the property of a person dying intestate. Of these disqualifications, one which may lead to the disqualification of the right to inherit property by a son or daughter is the provision of ‘murdered disqualified’.


As per this provision, a person who commits or abets the commission of the murder shall be disqualified from inheriting any property of the person murdered. Thus, if a son or daughter is found guilty of murdering or abetting the murder of his/her father then, they shall be disqualified by law from claiming their share in his property upon succession. 

 


How can a lawyer help you?

Sometimes the law and the legal framework can get confusing and difficult to understand, especially when the issue is related to family property and rights of inheritance. In such a scenario, one may not realize how to determine the legal issue, the area to which the issue relates to, whether the issue requires going to court and, how the court procedure works. Seeing a property lawyer and getting some legal advice can enable you to comprehend your choices and can give you the certainty to enable you to determine your legal recourse.


An experienced attorney can give you expert advice on how to handle your property matter owing to his/her years of experience in handling such cases. A is an expert on the laws and can help you avoid significant mistakes that may cause financial harm or will require future legal proceedings to correct. Thus, by hiring an attorney you can ensure avoiding delay and can get your share in the property as quickly as possible.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree