Kiran Suri Ms., Sr Adv, Interpretation of amended Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act in 2020(9) SCC 1

Friday Group:
Topic: Interpretation of amended Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act in 2020(9) SCC Page 1
Speaker: Kiran Suri Ms., Sr. Advocate, Supreme Court of India.
Organizer : G.Seshagiri Rao, Advocate Supreme Court of India.
Please subscribe to our channel Friday Group : / @fridaygroupseshagirirao

[@alvashanthanna7609]

We are missing the educative group since longtime, happy to see ur come back after Carona 🙏

[@rajbrar6080]

Thanks Rao sir, adv Kiran Suri and justice basant for valuable information

[@shekhartalashilkar7063]

Excellent erudite lecture And Discussion. Thank you🙏🙏

[@dr.krishnaswamykrishnappa3198]

So madam as per your talk, as I have understood, that, even the Oral PARTITION & Unregistered PARTITION DEED, which has been acted upon by Mutations in the contemporary Public Records is Valid PARTITION .

[@kannadhasandhasan4606]

this class is very useful madam and sir

[@muthumaniveeramuthu2381]

Thanks for explanation

[@traddad9172]

88,000 more years of the KaliYuga- respect to the Hindus 💪✅️

[@usharohidekar4089]

Hello, I am not a legal professional I need some clarification about partition. In the amended act of 2oo5 partition is either by a registered deed or by final decree of the court. According to vineeta sharma even oral partition supported by public records is acceptable. What happens to those cases filed purely on the basis of amended 2005 act,ie daughters claiming their rights with respect to unregistered partition. Please help.

[@replyshelar]

sir what is the procedure to join this group please suggest

[@kannadhasandhasan4606]

super

[@dr.krishnaswamykrishnappa3198]

Unmarried Daughter of the Joint Hindu Family is a Coparcener as per the Hindu Succession act Amended on 2005

[@APsingh-sci]

Nice

[@AkashYadav-jq5vo]

Can my Father claims his grandfather property if my grandfather left his property without any will to his cousin brother and they are enjoying property since 50years....

[@prakashgm9018]

Pls make video of wife's right on property. Nowadays lot of 498a cases.

[@sayasargam]

Partition part- appears need reconsideration by court as -two aspect- status by mere communication of status and determination of share are two transactions, which has been mixed up as court is only deciding the second part of determining and alloting the share.

[@sayasargam]

Moreover, one cannot be prejudiced by delay on part of court Or party not depositing stamp duty

[@AdvRituRajkumari]

Sir, Please tell me at what time does the Friday Group assemble ?

[@aejazhusseinhussain3073]

😢😊

[@ravindranathreddy2914]

Why still after 65 years. Our hundu sisters they married. For marriage. The father have given. All efforts for marriage. With financial. Her father does not take any under taking. Because father is un egatedeted.know after marriage 65.or 70 years they clim. How does problems been solved. Madam.

[@haribaskarr1892]

CORRECTION THIS IS MOTHER IN LAW PROPERTY MADAM

[@rakeshdubey1587]

It seems complicated because of prepositions and suppositions. It could have been much better if it would have pointed out, a clear list of direct effects on 20/12/2004. Things which are not going to be affected

[@haribaskarr1892]

RESPECTED MADAM , MY OWN SISTER WAS WIDOW WITHOUT CHILD HAS GOT TWO ACRES LAND BY PARTITION FROM MOTHER IN ANCESTRAL PROPERTY AFTER HUSBAND DEATH AND MY SISTER ALSO DIED AFTER ONE YEAR PROPERTY PARTITIONED BUT MY SISTER WAS WITH US. AFTER HUSBAND DIED NOW THIS INHERITED PROPERTY WILL GO TO WHOM ? MADAM

[@sanjeevsirohi8056]

Why when it is Uttar Pradesh which tops in the State list in having maximum number of pending cases has just one Bench and that too just 230 km away from Allahabad at Lucknow only and nowhere else and why the 30 districts of West UP have been attached not with Lucknow which is 230 km earlier but have to travel whole night and half day all the way to Allahabad to seek justice? Why when Justice Jaswant Singh Commission recommended three HC Benches for undivided UP yet not one created and Maharashtra which tops in the latest justice index ranking list and where women are totally safe even in night and still has multiple HC Benches? Why the former UN Secretary General Ban ki Moon termed UP as the rape and crime capital of India and still has just one Bench only and peaceful States like Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, West Bengal and Assam have multiple HC Benches? Kindly speak on this also? Why Centre happily approves shifting of Uttarakhand from Nainital to Haldwani but in case of Uttar Pradesh is not ready to shift either High Court or Bench to West UP or in Purvanchal or in Bundelkhand where there is not even a single HC Bench? My best wishes and best regards, Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate

[@saty21isha]

Section 6 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 3 [ 6 Devolution of interest in coparcenary property. - (1) On and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005*, in a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener shall,- (a) by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son; (b) have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son; (c) be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenary property as that of a son, and any reference to a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to include a reference to a daughter of a coparcener: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect or invalidate any disposition or alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of property which had taken place before the 20th day of December, 2004. (2) Any property to which a female Hindu becomes entitled by virtue of sub­-section (1) shall be held by her with the incidents of coparcenary ownership and shall be regarded, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force in, as property capable of being disposed of by her by testamentary disposition. (3) Where a Hindu dies after the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005*, his interest in the property of a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be, under this Act and not by survivorship, and the coparcenary property shall be deemed to have been divided as if a partition had taken place and,- (a) the daughter is allotted the same share as is allotted to a son; (b) the share of the pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter, as they would have got had they been alive at the time of partition, shall be allotted to the surviving child of such pre-deceased son or of such pre-deceased daughter; and (c) the share of the pre-deceased child of a pre-deceased son or of a pre­-deceased daughter, as such child would have got had he or she been alive at the time of the partition, shall be allotted to the child of such pre-deceased child of the pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter, as the case may be. Explanation. -For the purposes of this sub-section, the interest of a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition of the property had taken place immediately before his death, irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not. (4) After the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005*, no court shall recognise any right to proceed against a son, grandson or great­-grandson for the recovery of any debt due from his father, grandfather or great-grandfather solely on the ground of the pious obligation under the Hindu law, of such son, grandson or great-grandson to discharge any such debt: Provided that in the case of any debt contracted before the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005*, nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect- (a) the right of any creditor to proceed against the son, grandson or great-grandson, as the case may be; or (b) any alienation made in respect of or in satisfaction of, any such debt, and any such right or alienation shall be enforceable under the rule of pious obligation in the same manner and to the same extent as it would have been enforceable as if the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 had not been enacted. Explanation. -For the purposes of clause (a), the expression “son”, “grandson” or “great-grandson” shall be deemed to refer to the son, grandson or great-grandson, as the case may be, who was born or adopted prior to the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005*. (5) Nothing contained in this section shall apply to a partition, which has been effected before the 20th day of December, 2004. Explanation. -For the purposes of this section “partition” means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court.] Statement of Objects and Reasons [The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005] Section 6 of the Act deals with devolution of interest of a male Hindu in coparcenary property and recognises the rule of devolution by survivorship among the members of the coparcenary. The retention of the Mitakshara coparcenary property without including the females in it means that the females cannot inherit in ancestral property as their male counterparts do. The law by excluding the daughter from participating in the coparcenary ownership not only contributes to her discrimination on the ground of gender but also has led to oppression and negation of her fundamental right of equality guaranteed by the Constitution having regard to the need to render social justice to women, the States of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra have made necessary changes in the law giving equal right to daughters in Hindu Mitakshara coparcenary property. The Kerala Legislature has enacted the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975. It is proposed to remove the discrimination as contained in section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 by giving equal rights to daughters in the Hindu Mitakshara coparcenary property as the sons have. State Amendment Sections 6A to 6C Karnataka: After section 6 the following sections shall be inserted, namely:- "6A. Equal rights to daugher in co-parcenary property.- Notwithstanding anything contained in section 6 of this Act- (a) in a joint Hindu family governed by Mitakshara law, the daughter of a co-parcener shall by birth become a co-parcener in her own right in the same manner as the son and have the same rights in the co-parcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son inclusive of the right to claim by survivorship and shall be subject to the same liabilities and disabilities in respect thereto as the son; (b) at a partition in such a joint Hindu family the co-parcenary property shall be so divided as to allot to a daughter the same share as is allotable to a son: Provided that the share which a predeceased son or a predeceased daughter would have got at the partition if he or she had been alive at the time of the partition, shall be allotted to the surviving child of such predeceased son or of such predeceased daughter: Provided further that the share allotable to the predeceased child of a predeceased son or of a predeceased daughter, if such child had been alive at the time of the partition, shall be allotted to the child of such predeceased child of the predeceased son or of such predeceased daughter, as the case may be; (c) any property to which a female Hindu becomes entitled by virtue of the provisions of clause (a) shall be held by her with the incidents of co-parcenary ownership and shall be regarded, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, as property capable of being disposed of by her by will or other testamentary disposition; (d) nothing in clause (b) shall apply to a daughter married prior to or to a partition which had been effected before the commencement of Hindu Succession (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1990.

[@manjunathaks607]

No clarity in this judgement on Daughter died before 8/9/2005 .Most of the Advocates Misguide this and dragging up the common people to the Courts of India..😂

[@reenagodara8285]

हिंदी मे बताओ