Supreme Court ruling on daughters' rights

- People-oriented guidance - H.S. Patel IAS (Retd.)

- In the judgment of 2030 of the Supreme Court also, the daughters have been given the same right in the property of the father, grandfather and great-grandfather as the son has the same right to the property.

- Significant Supreme Court judgment granting daughters property rights

Recently Ta. On January 30, 2009, the Supreme Court passed a landmark judgment that even before the Hindu Succession Act-19, daughters have a right to their father's self-acquired property. Formerly Dat. A bench of Justices Abdul Nazir and Krishna Murari also passed the civil appeal no. In the case of 9/11, a judgment has been issued establishing the right of inheritance in the father's acquired property and decree of Arunachala Gounder to revoke the judgment of the lower trial court and the judgment of the Madras High Court.

Before examining the details of this case, it is important to note that this judgment provides a precedent for the right of heirs to property under Hindu law and analyzes the practice prevailing in different parts of India, showing its origins from Shruti-Smriti and Samhitas. As 'Mitakshari' is applicable in most parts of the country while 'Daya Bhaag' is considered as the basis in Bengal region. The issue of women's rights has also been mentioned in the judgment of the previous Hindu Succession Amendment Act 18. Now the property in question in this case was bought by Ramaswami Gounder in the auction on the basis of court order in 18 and Ramaswami died in 18 and since he died instantly, the property was entered in the name of his elder brother's heirs. Deceased and decreed this property by trial court from 1-9-18. Original Suite No. 2/121 which was canceled by the trial court which was challenged in the Madras High Court was also canceled by the judgment of the High Court dated 31-1-2008.

The property in question, which was challenged before the Supreme Court and decided in it, ruled that Kuyapi Amal would inherit the property as the heir of the property, even though the property was self-acquired and the father had died unintentionally. “If a property of male Hindu dying inteslaste is a self acquired property or obtained in partition of coparcenary or a family property, the same should devolve by interitance and not by Survivorship and a daughter of such male. Hindus would be entitled to inherit such property in preference to other collaterals. If the property belongs to the husband's party or the father-in-law's party, then the husband's heirs will get it. The Supreme Court's judgment of 2020 also states that daughters have the same right to property as their fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers. Thus, even before the 18th of this judgment, the father of the daughter dies unaccompanied and the property is self-acquired and the daughters are entitled to the share of the property. In this case too, the property in question belonged to a joint family and the sons of the deceased's elder brother Marappa Gounder are entitled to the property, the trial court ruled and the Madras High Court upheld the judgment. The Hindu Heritage Act-19 came into force, which states how the rights of women are devolved. In our country, according to the system of Hindu society, being a patriarchal society (Patriach), according to the joint family practice, giving a daughter in marriage was considered to fulfill the responsibility. But the same rights of the daughter have been established by the law of 19 and now in the case of self-acquired property from the aforesaid judgment also the right to the property is inherited in the case of inheritance right before the 16th and the place of law is given by the judgment of the Supreme Court.

Inheritance is usually done after the death of any property holder and the effect is to change the title deed in the land revenue record and the property register in the city survey area.

The universally accepted principle of title deed is to keep the transaction valid till the contradiction is proved. 'Unless Contrary Proved' If a dispute arises, the civil court has the power to determine the ownership and its decision is final.

But the decision taken by the revenue officers subject to the aforesaid Act and the judgments of the Supreme Court does not lead to unnecessary disputes and unnecessary litigation can be avoided.