Daughter's right to property

 DAUGHTER’S RIGHT TO PROPERTY

At the time of the Hindu succession act's enactment in 1956, legislators did not see the need to grant daughters rights to the father's ancestral property. It was thought at the time that after her marriage, the daughter would be part of another family and would not be entitled to inherit her father's coparcenary property.

In today's world, your gender as a woman has little bearing on your property rights. As a result, the property rights of daughters are nearly identical to those of sons.

A daughter has the same right as any other man to acquire, hold, and dispose of the property. There are almost no restrictions on a woman's ability to acquire, hold, and dispose of her property today. Daughters are entitled to an equal share of their father's self-acquired as well as ancestral property. Daughters have become coparceners as a result of the 2005 Supreme Court decision. As a result, they have equal ownership of all property, including agricultural lands. Both men and women are capable of owning their own, distinct property. Any restrictions on property rights apply equally to both sexes.

Who is Coparcener?

Coparcener is the person who has had legal ownership of ancestral property since birth. It denotes the equality of title, possession, and interest. A coparcenary property is one that any Hindu inherits from his father, grandfather, and great grandfather. Prior to 2005, the coparcener only included sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons who were joint family holders.

Daughter’s Right to property after 2005

After approximately 50 years, the centre passed the 2005 amendment act to address gender discrimination in coparcenary property. Previously, women were not considered coparceners to inherit ancestral property from birth, as sons were. Section 6 of the act, which deals with coparceners' rights in Hindu undivided family property, was amended. The 2005 amendment act repealed the survivorship rule and replaced it with testamentary and intestate succession.

Daughters have the same right as sons to become coparceners and to request a Hindu Undivided family partition. She also has the right to dispose of her share of coparcenary property at her leisure. Daughters were identified as coparceners from birth. Similarly, the son and daughter will bear equal responsibility.

Married daughter’s right to property under Hindu succession Act

Under the Hindu Succession Act, a married daughter has the right to property.

After marriage, the daughter will remain a coparcener but will no longer be a member of our parents' Hindu undivided family. She has the right to request partition, and he can become a Karta of HUF only if she is the eldest coparcener of her father's HUF. Following the death of a married daughter, her child is entitled to her share. Importantly, the daughter does not have the right to gift her share of the HUF property while she is alive, but she can do so through a will. Her share will be automatically transferred over to her legal heirs the death of the married daughter.

Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, a recent case (2020) A three-judge bench led by Justice A.K. Sikri ruled that the daughters are entitled to equal property rights even if they were not born at the time of the 2005 amendment to the Hindu succession act, 1956, and even if the father died before the amendment act went into effect.

According to Justice Mishra: Regardless of whether her father is alive or not, the daughter will remain a loving daughter for the rest of her life, and they will remain a coparcener for the rest of their lives.

The Supreme Court ruled that the 2005 amendment had retroactive effect, conferring rights on daughters who were alive at the time of the amendment, even if they were born prior to it.

As a result of the recent ruling, the 2005 Amendment Act has been declared retrospective, and daughters are now granted equal rights to ancestral property even if the father died before September 9th, 2005. A woman will have an equal share of the undivided family property whether her father was alive when the law was amended in 2005 or not, with the law having retroactive effect.