Panel looks at proposal on pre-2004 oral partitions
If you are a woman who shared your late father's riches with siblings under a mutual family arrangement before December 2004 and the oral terms were not registered.
By PTI |
NEW DELHI: If you are a woman who shared your late father's riches with siblings under a mutual family arrangement before December 2004 and the oral terms were not registered, then you should know that the deal is legally invalid and cannot stand the test of law in a court.
Though courts try to uphold the validity of oral partition of property or riches, common among Hindus, such arrangements continue to be invalid under the provisions of the amended Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005.
But things may change soon if a proposal being considered by Law Commission chairman A R Lakshmanan gets the government's nod, leading to granting of legal sanctity to oral partitions among family members which were finalised before December 2004.
The proposal seeks to address to a lacuna that seems to have crept in at the time when the succession Act was amended three years ago to give equal inheritance rights to daughters in their parents' property.
While laying down the terms for a partition giving a daughter equal right in parents' riches, like brothers, the Amendment said "Nothing contained in this section shall apply to a partition, which has been effected before December 20 2004."
The pre-December 2004 oral partitions - which otherwise were sympathetically viewed by courts - became illegal or were set at naught through the Amendment because the definition of partition in the Act did not incorporated the words "oral partition or family arrangement."
The Explanation under Section 6 (5) of the Amendment says "for the purposes of this section "partition" means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908, or partition effected by a decree of a court."
Though courts try to uphold the validity of oral partition of property or riches, common among Hindus, such arrangements continue to be invalid under the provisions of the amended Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005.
But things may change soon if a proposal being considered by Law Commission chairman A R Lakshmanan gets the government's nod, leading to granting of legal sanctity to oral partitions among family members which were finalised before December 2004.
The proposal seeks to address to a lacuna that seems to have crept in at the time when the succession Act was amended three years ago to give equal inheritance rights to daughters in their parents' property.
While laying down the terms for a partition giving a daughter equal right in parents' riches, like brothers, the Amendment said "Nothing contained in this section shall apply to a partition, which has been effected before December 20 2004."
The pre-December 2004 oral partitions - which otherwise were sympathetically viewed by courts - became illegal or were set at naught through the Amendment because the definition of partition in the Act did not incorporated the words "oral partition or family arrangement."
ADVERTISEMENT
The Explanation under Section 6 (5) of the Amendment says "for the purposes of this section "partition" means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908, or partition effected by a decree of a court."
Download
The Economic Times Business News App for the Latest News in Business, Sensex, Stock Market Updates & More.
The Economic Times Business News App for the Latest News in Business, Sensex, Stock Market Updates & More.
Download
The Economic Times News App for Quarterly Results, Latest News in ITR, Business, Share Market, Live Sensex News & More.
The Economic Times News App for Quarterly Results, Latest News in ITR, Business, Share Market, Live Sensex News & More.
ADVERTISEMENT
