LI Network
Published on: October 3, 2023 at 12:43 IST
The Telangana High Court has ruled that, in light of the amendments to the Hindu Succession Act of 2005, which grant daughters equal rights to sons in ancestral property, a mother cannot legally waive the property rights of her minor children, particularly without proper documentation.
Also Read: LATEST AMENDMENTS IN HINDU SUCCESSION ACT
Justice P. Sree Sudha stated that the mother’s alleged waiver of her daughters’ rights in the ancestral property could not be legally recognized, especially without proper documentation. She emphasized that even if the mother had received money and purchased properties, it could not be assumed that she received the amount on behalf of her daughters and relinquished their right to partition.
The Court referred to legal precedents, including Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma & Ors. and Pasagadugula Narayana Rao v. Pasagadugula Rama Murthy, to emphasize that no relinquishment can be made orally and must be done through a registered instrument.
The judgment was issued in a second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of a Junior Civil Judge.
The appellants, who are the daughters of the respondent, had initially filed a suit for partition of their father’s property, seeking a 1/3rd share for each of them.
The respondent argued that the mother had received Rs. 30,000 and relinquished the daughters’ share in the property, which the trial court and the first appellate court accepted.
However, the Second Appeal contended that the lower courts had misinterpreted the evidence of the mother and that she could not legally relinquish the rights of her minor daughters.
The appeal also cited the 2005 amendments to the Hindu Succession Act, which granted daughters equal rights to sons in ancestral property.
Justice Sree Sudha noted that the parents of the appellants had not legally separated, and the respondent had not remarried, making them sole coparceners under the amended section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 2005.
Therefore, both daughters were entitled to a 1/3rd share in the property of the respondent, and the appeal was allowed.
Also read: General Rules of Succession