Can Daughter in Law Be a Coparcener in Huf
A. According to the Hindu Inheritance Act of 1956, women from a common Hindu family were not considered co-parkers. They had no rights to their ancestral property before the change in the Hindu inheritance law in 2005. The 2005 amendment gave women equal rights to their ancestral property as their male counterparts. To clarify these issues, the Supreme Court stated on August 11, 2020, in the case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma and Others, that girls will have co-proportional rights to their father`s property, even if he died before the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act came into force this year. After the death of her husband, that is, as a widow, a daughter-in-law is entitled to her husband`s property left by him. This property can be ancestral or acquired by oneself. The right she acquires is that of widow of the deceased husband. If the property is self-acquired property, the widowed daughter-in-law is not entitled to it. The court goes on to say that she cannot even live in the house against the will of her in-laws. There are certain rights and restrictions of a Coparcener under the Hindu Inheritance Act. These are: A member of a HUF means all people who are linear descendants of a common ancestor, including single wives and daughters.
However, under Hindu law, a Coparcener is the male member born in this HUF, and only a Coparcener has the rights to ancestral property. This means that not all members of a Hindu family cartographer can demand division. Only a Coparcener can demand this. Here are some things to keep in mind regarding the sharing of co-park property: With the amendment of Article 6 of the Hindu Succession Act (the amendment came into force on 9 September 2005), the rights of daughters in terms of ancestral property were equated with those of sons, summarizing them as Coparcener. Prior to the 2005 amendment, only men were co-parkers of a HUF, while all women were considered only “members”. Because of this variation, their rights were also different. While a Coparcener can apply for a division of property, members such as daughters and mothers were only entitled to alimony from the HUF property. They would get their share if a division took place.
However, they were not allowed to ask for division. According to Hindu inheritance law, the term Coparcener is used to refer to a person who, by birth in an undivided Hindu family (HUF), assumes a legal right to his ancestral property. According to the Hindu Succession Act of 1956, anyone born in a HUF becomes a copalmener from birth. Before we continue, it would be important to understand what a HUF is. A daughter-in-law has very little rights to her husband`s ancestral property. Personal laws govern heritage in India. The Hindu undivided family (HUF) grants a daughter-in-law the status of a family member from the date of her marriage, but this does not make her a copalmine. The daughter-in-law acquires rights to the family property through her husband`s share of the property (either intentionally transferred by the husband or received after the husband`s death). The daughter-in-law cannot assert any rights to property that belongs exclusively to her in-laws, and such property is not treated as community property. In the case of the deceased mother-in-law, her share is divided equally among her children and the daughter-in-law acquires only rights to her husband`s share. Daughters-in-law have no rights to their parents- in-laws` self-acquired property.
She acquires rights to the in-laws` property only through her husband`s share of the property. However, we should take into account that a married girl is no longer considered part of the HUF; This is only part of the Coparcenary. At the same time, only one daughter born into this common family is part of the Coparceners of the family. Any other woman who is part of this family through a conjugal alliance is not a kopelmacherin of this family. The daughter-in-law has a right of residence only until there is a conjugal relationship with her husband. The right of residence is also granted if the house is rented accommodation. If the property is a self-acquired property, his father-in-law and daughter-in-law have no right of residence, since said house is not a common house, since the husband has no share in it. The above conflict was resolved in the recent landmark Supreme Court decision in the case of Vineeta Sharma v.
Rakesh Sharma. The court ruled that the daughter of a Co-Lomlenian has the same rights to the property and family property of the Undivided Hindu Family (HUF) from birth, regardless of whether her father died before or after September 9. 2005. The provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Inheritance Act, replaced, confer on a daughter born before or after the amendment the status of Coparzener (equal shareholders in the inheritance of immovable property) in the same way as sons with the same rights and responsibilities. Since the law in Coparcenery is from birth, it is not necessary for the Coparcener`s father to live on September 9, 2005 (the date the law came into force),” the Supreme Court said in its decision, which made the 2005 amendment retroactive. However, it stated that an action registered for composition or division brought before 20 December 2004 would not be reopened. In Danamma v. Amar, Article 6 was extended retroactively by the Supreme Court. The father died in this case in 2001, leaving behind two daughters, two husbands and a widow. The court had ruled that “it is the very fact of birth in a koparzenar that creates the coparzenar, so the sons and daughters of a Koparkener became Koparkeners by birth”, the court therefore concluded that, although the father was not yet alive in 2005, when the amended Article 6 came into force, The same share of the ownership of the co-park should be granted to the two girls. Until recently, under the Hindu Inheritance Act of 1956, the wives of a HUF had no rights to the property of their ancestors.
A single woman was part of a common Hindu family until her marriage and was never part of the telegraph. With the amendment of the Hindu Inheritance Act in 2005, the Supreme Court of India granted girls equal rights to their ancestral property. Presided over by Judge Arun Mishra, a three-judge panel ruled that girls are also copals from birth and will remain so for the rest of their lives, even if the father died, before the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act came into force in 2005. Therefore, girls now also have the power to demand division. Since a co-park follows the Mitakshara system, the proportion of a co-park is determined by the survivor. The proportion fluctuates when there is a birth or death in the family. This proportion is defined only in the case of a partition. A common Ancestor and all of his linear descendants, including their unmarried wives and daughters.
There should be at least two individuals to form a common or undivided Hindu family. They can be men or women. Two female members can form a common family. The existence of a common family property is not necessary for the existence of a common Hindu family. The reasons previously given by the courts, including the highest court in the country, that a woman cannot become a Karta because a Karta must be a Coparcener. However, in 2005, Section 6 of the Act was amended to grant girls the same rights as sons in the Hindu Mitakshara coparescence. In general, the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 also does not recognize a woman as a karta. It is important to remember that amendments are only the first step. The Statute will have only a deterrent effect; It cannot guarantee that justice will be done.
This requires a positive change in social norms. The rule will always be one step ahead of the situation. Women need to understand that the law does not discriminate against them when it comes to land and that it can no longer be exploited. Justice is often hampered only by a lack of understanding. Hopefully, women will learn more about their rights. In reality, they should be encouraged and allowed to assert their rights in situations where they are rejected. Hindu law recognizes the concept of an undivided Hindu family. Only men up to four generations (linear descendants of a common ancestor) are coparceners, and all others are members of the family.
According to the 2005 amendment to the 1956 act, the girl, whether married or not, is a copalmine. After marriage, the daughter ceases to be a member of the father`s HUF, but she is still a copalmine. A girl has the rights and obligations of a co-sharer. Any Coparcener can request a partition, whether it is a minor or an adult. This list of coparceners contains: The term has its Hindi equivalent as समान उत्तराधिकारी. On the other hand, हमवारिस is the Urdu meaning of Coparcener. When applied in the context of Hindu laws, Coparcener has a more specific meaning than mere co-inheritance. In prakash v. Phoolwatia, the panel of two Supreme Court justices, stressed that the benefit of the 2005 change can only be granted to “living co-parents` daughters.” Article 6, which means that it would only apply if the copier and the daughter were present on 9 September 2005. With the amendment of the law in 2005, only the Mitakshara school was affected, because before the aforementioned change, only male members of the HUF had the right to become accomplices. But the said amendment also provided rights for huf girls.