Banglore ancestral property for 2 sons & a daughter. She married in 1982 & died 1998. Does her son get a share

Question

I understand married daughters in Karnataka before 1993 do not have rights on ancestral property acquired by grandfather in family partition and presently owned by his widow. Grandfather had only one daughter who has 2 sons and a daughter referred to in the question. Now, it is proposed to share the property between the 2 sons only, as there are no property rights in ancestral property for the daughter in view of the fact that she was married in 1982 and died in 1998 leaving a husband and a son. Husband has remarried.

Grandfather got property by partition during his life time. He died intestate in 1951 leaving widow and a daughter (referred to as mother). Widow gets property transferred to her name. Mother married in 1952 and has 2 sons and a daughter(referred to as sister). All three children get married with one child each. Sister was married in 1982 and died in 1998. Now the partition is proposed between the two brothers. Is the deceased sister's son entitled for a share? The property is located in Karnataka.

There appears to be slight misunderstanding. In the given case, both widow (grand mother) and mother are alive. So are both sons. Only sister is dead leaving a son. Will it change any legal position?

Answer 1

I hope this disputed property relates to a Hindu Family. Firstly the grand father acquired legal right on the property during his life time in partition of the ancestral Hindu property & hence this part of property he got at the time of the whole ancestral property became his self acquired property which will be covered by Hindu Succession Act, 1956 & not by the old Hindu law relating to Hindu ancestral properties. Secondly he is survived by his widow, two sons of his pre-deceased daughter, son of his pre-deceased daughter's pre-deceased daughter, husband of the pre-deceased daughter's pre-deceased daughter. Now coming to the present scenario, according the Hindu Succession Act, his widow & sons of his pre-deceased daughter are the only surviving class 1 heir, where as son & the husband of the pre-deceased daughter of the pre-deceased daughter is neither a class 1 heir nor class 2 heirs. Considering this position only class 1 heir i.e. the widow & two sons of the pre-deceased daughter gets a share each in this property neither the son nor the husband of pre-deceased daughter's pre-deceased daughter. As far what Karnataka laws say regarding ancestral property doesn’t apply in such case as it is not an ancestral property any more after the partition which took during the life time of the grandfather & it became his self acquired property. Your additional facts don't change the legal position in your case, the partition of this property left by the grand father takes place now when neither the daughter referred as mother nor her daughter referred as sister is alive, only the son of this pre-deceased daughter's pre-deceased daughter are alive & seeking his share out of this property, which I have already stated gets nothing, as he is neither class1 heir nor class 2 heir. Let the property be located in Karnataka or any where else in India this basic legal position won't change under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Now if this property was transferred in the name of the grand father's widow her surviving class 1 heir are the two sons of the pre-deceased daughter i.e. these two brothers & still this son of the pre-deceased daughter's pre-deceased daughter who is not her class 1 heir, yes definitely if the sister of these two brothers was alive she was entitled to one share equal to her brothers each not her son. As far section 15 of the Act it provides General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus.- (1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in section 16,-
(a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband.
(b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband.
(c) thirdly, upon the heirs of the father, and
(d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father, and
(e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),-
(a) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father, and
(b) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father-in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband. As you see here it mentions children of any pre-deceased son or daughter who are these two sons or brothers or grand sons of this widow as you call them, but there is no mention of pre-deceased daughter’s pre-deceased daughter son or the great grand son of this widow, so the question of this person getting any share under this rule doesn’t apply, just forget any wrong legal advice given to you here or any where else. Every day you bring new facts in your case, now you state that grand mother & her daughter i.e. mother of these two sons are alive. In such a case this whole property already stands in the name of the grand mother & she is the sole owner of such property because at the time this property was being transferred in her name the said daughter never objected for the same rather she must have given her consent to such mutation of the property without which such change of name or mutation of property could not take place. Since this grand mother is alive the question of these two sons of her daughter getting this property transferred in their names by partition doesn't arise as she can devolve such property as she likes by transferring it in the name of any one during her life time or by will to any one after her death. The very fact these two sons of her daughter are trying to snatch this property from this old lady itself is wrong, illegal & punishable offence, in the name of ancestral property, which actual becomes her own self acquired property after being transferred in her name in 1952. Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act,1956 is very clear regarding this Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute Property.- (1) Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner.

Explanation.- In this sub-section, "property" includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a relative or note, before, at or after her marriage, or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as stridhana immediately before the commencement of this Act.

(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to any property acquired by way of gift or under a will or any other instrument or under a decree or order of a civil court or under an award where the terms of the gift, will or other instrument or the decree, order or award prescribe a restricted estate in such property.

Answer 2

banglore ancestral property 2 sons daughter married 1982 died 1998 son share

Answer 3

You will be governed by the law of succession applicable as per your religion. But you have the right to give your ancestral property to your son, by a Will to be properly made out and witnessed and registered through a legal counsel. If you anticipate problem after your demise from you daughters, transfer the property now itself during your life time and that resolves the issues. As a father do compensate your daughters as a matter of good will out of your other resources again in your life time. You must have spent substantial amounts on their marriage which you should account for as a parting gift already benefited by them.

Answer 4

Yes the pre-deceased daughters son can claim thru his mother under doctrine of representation. When property devolves on the widow after death it becomes her absolute property and it is no more a limited estate with vested rights of reversionary heirs. In mothers absolute property the sons and daughters have equal share. as the the daughter is pre-deceased, her son will take her place and claim the share of his deceased mother. once the property vests absolutely in the hands of a woman ( widow) u/s 14,15 Hindu Succession Act. Consult an Advocate.

Widow ( absolute property ) ( deceased ) -> Mother ( single daughter - absolute property ) ( deceased ) - > Deceased daughter ( absolute property ) - > surviving Son u/s 14 & 15. The rules are different for propertys of women as the anscentral property becomes absolute property in the hands of a woman and as such the general rules of succession dont apply in such case. Hence, son of the pre-deceased daughter is entitled to a share. Vijay is not supreme court judge so no need to believe what he says as 100% true. You just consult a good advocate in your area.

Vijay is soliciting clients via internet which amounts to professional misconduct under Advocates Act, 1961 under which he is barred from advertising his services or soliciting clients in any manner whatsoever if this is reported to the bar council, vijay will be suspended or have his name removed from the rolls of the bar council of delhi. So Mr. Vijay you keep your advice to yourself and stop criticising the views of others. Dont think you are a judge you are only an advocate.