Previously who died intestate sons of “V”

Previously the Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 1956 for giving the women their right to property in 2005, the States like Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu have made provisions granting rights to women in the property for their respective states. Accordingly, the High Courts of these states have used these provisions in courtesy of the women for their property rights. Besides other high courts have shown their disgraceful concern over such rights of women.

 

In a very recent case, it was held that under sections 6 and 6A of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, unmarried daughters are eligible to the equal standing of a coparcener and are entitled to equal rights with a son.

Best services for writing your paper according to Trustpilot

Premium Partner
From $18.00 per page
4,8 / 5
4,80
Writers Experience
4,80
Delivery
4,90
Support
4,70
Price
Recommended Service
From $13.90 per page
4,6 / 5
4,70
Writers Experience
4,70
Delivery
4,60
Support
4,60
Price
From $20.00 per page
4,5 / 5
4,80
Writers Experience
4,50
Delivery
4,40
Support
4,10
Price
* All Partners were chosen among 50+ writing services by our Customer Satisfaction Team

 

In case of Mallipedy (died) vs. Narendra Tulasamma (died), the Andhra High Court gave its judgment on the property right in favor of the first wife of the defunct husband. It held that the subsequent wife is not legally wedded wife, would not be eligible for any property. The first wife is entitled to the whole property since there was no other survivor.

 

The Karnataka high court in another case held that widow of a deceased son not being a class I heir “V” who died intestate sons of “V” cannot claim the right of pre-emption.

 

The Andhra Pradesh high court in another case of Prakash v. Pushpa Vani, in the matter of concubine property right held that concubine is eligible to the maintained by her paramour till her death. The right was not eradicated by Hindu’s Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937. The life interest in the house which is given to her in lieu of maintenance before the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, would expand into full estate after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

 

Calcutta High Court in dealing with the female’s right to property in case of Kamal Basu Majumdar vs. Usha Bhadra Chaudhary held that right of a female to house property does not vanish if the tenants evacuate premises during the pendency of the suit. In this case, the female south of the petition and such house was partly occupied by a tenant.

 

In connection with the widow’s right to property Jharkhand high Court in Naresh Jha vs. Rakesh Kumar, showed this comer over devolution of property. In a case1male Hindu died and leave behind a widow and two sons. His death happened prior to coming into force of Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937 repealed by Hindu Succession Act, 1956. His property would devolve upon his two sons in equal shares and no share in the property would devolve upon widow.

 

In a case pertaining to the right of a married daughter, it was held that daughter being class I heirs is entitled to share in the property of father and marriage before 20 years back is immaterial. The Madras High court in R. Deivanai Ammal case where a female heir demanded partition right held that provision of section 23 (now omitted by the Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is not a complete bar to claim the partition right. The properties purchased by Hindu widow with savings from joint Hindu family lands prima facie should be regarded as her own self-acquisition except the person claiming a share in them has pleaded and proved that the widow preserved them accretion to the joint family estate.

 

Thus, the High Courts in dealing with the women’s right to property in the line of the provision of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the concern of the legislative intent of the act in total. But they face the problem of conflicting laws of succession among the Hindus because the succession varies with the disparity of principles of different schools of Hindu law in the scale of uncodified provision of Hindu law. This is so because, before the instigation of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the country was with the essential concept of Hindu law and the same was not taken away fully in the said Act. Hence the conflict between codified Hindu law and uncodified Hindu law confuses the courts in India to understand the provisions of any law in connection with succession and property rights. Though not fully, the Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005 can permit the courts to protect the women’s right to property without any vagueness and passion. Without passion because the alteration provision of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is the comprehensive code for the protection of women’s right to property and the omission of section 23 and 24 can stock more fuel to serve the long-awaited purpose of the Indian women.

 

In this respect it can be quoted that: “Occasionally, new laws allow legal intellectuals to feel, they had altered a long-standing error. But contrarily enough they preserve for individuals to think over the socially unenforced rights forever.”

x

Hi!
I'm Isaac!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out