Daughters who lost fathers pre-amendment left without equal inheritance right

The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005 will not apply to women whose father died before the amendement came in force, ruled the Supreme Court, effectively withdrawing such women’s right to equal share in their fathers’ property, reported The Indian Express.

The Supreme Court bench of justices Anil R Dave and Adarsh K Goel ruled that the amendment to the act cannot apply retrospectively and a daughter will become a co-sharer in inherited land from her father only if the father was alive on 9 September 2005.

Females are already ineligible for a share if the property was alienated or partitioned before 20 December 2004, the date the bill was introduced, and this judgment goes a step further to disqualify another class of women.

The bench overruled the view taken by some high courts that the amendment should be applied retrospectively as it is a social legislation.

The judges observed in the order that “the text of the amendment itself clearly provides that the right conferred on a ‘daughter of a coparcener’ is ‘on and from the commencement’ of the amendment Act. In view of plain language of the statute, there is no scope for a different interpretation than the one suggested by the text,” it was reported.

Comments

No judicial activism 2 Nov 2015, 12:15
+1 -0
Even without NJAC, the judges are repeatedly shying away from giving bold judgments.

Baffled at the absurdity of this interpretation. It wasn't called for.
Trutth 2 Nov 2015, 13:01
+2 -0
This is where Supreme Court should have exercised its extra-ordinary power to make law
Sad Brother 4 Nov 2015, 00:51
+1 -4
This sad brother is happy today as his sisters unlimited greed was causing hatred and pain between brothers and sisters. They got dowry, they got gifts, they got Bhat/mayara and so on...but when the father died ..they all came as a bunch of hungry woulves to eat poor brothers inheritance.
The wise judges have done a great job by restoring normalcy in brother -sister realtionship.
Case name? 5 Nov 2015, 07:59
+0 -0
what is the name of this case??
judgement 5 Nov 2015, 08:00
+0 -0
does anyone know the name of this case/judgement?
sekhbu 5 Nov 2015, 16:21
+0 -0
Prakash vs phulavathi
arkya 5 Nov 2015, 12:48
+0 -0
I just want to know if someone's father died before 2005 yet in 2013 she sells the property to someone,is it legitimate?
Guest 5 Nov 2015, 16:20
+1 -0
Prakash vs phulavathi
guest2 6 Nov 2015, 04:20
+0 -0
IS a copy of this judgement availaible anywhere? manupatra does not have it yet/
DJMWG 6 Nov 2015, 14:34
+1 -0
Kian please uplode the sc copy if you can get from anywhere. Thanks !
Rajib barman 14 Nov 2015, 10:28
+0 -0
IS it applicable for West bengal also?
Malati Adak 14 Nov 2015, 18:37
+0 -0
The true spirit of the amendment of Hindu succession Act was to decrease the difference between the male and female siblings . The prospective view hurts the true spirit of the amendment. It is itself the magnifier of the difference. The law makers have or had nothing to do with prospective view. They were very much interested in its retrospective view. So the concerned authority should come forward to tackle the wrong verdict. Otherwise who will take care of those deprived women. There must be some one to protect their legitimate demand.