Legal Reference Library

A recent verdict given by Justice Naveen Rao of the Hyderabad High Court states that daughters too are equally entitled to their deceased father’s terminal benefits. While dismissing a petition filed by one C Chandrasekhar, son of a deceased employee of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD), the judge ruled that an employer is not at fault if he decides to distribute the terminal benefits of a deceased employee in equal parts among the sons, daughters and other heirs of that employee. Chandrasekhar has however challenged the decision on the basis of argument that his father had nominated his mother; she should receive all the benefits and also that his sister is married and is not entitled. Chandrasekhar had applied for a job under compassionate grounds. His father Rajagopal died in December 2014 while in service. However, the TTD, in accordance with the service records of its employee, Rajagopal, asked him to obtain a no-objection letter from his sister for securing a job in the TTD ...

In a ruling that will restrict the right of women seeking equal share in ancestral property, the Supreme Court has said that the 2005 amendment in Hindu law will not give property rights to a daughter if the father died before the amendment came into force. The court held that the amended provisions of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, could not have retrospective effect despite it being a social legislation. The court said the father would have had to be alive on September 9, 2005, if the daughter were to become a co-sharer with her male siblings. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, originally did not give daughters inheritance rights in ancestral property. They could only ask for a right to sustenance from a joint Hindu family. But this disparity was removed by an amendment to the Act on September 9, 2005. The apex court judgment has now added another disqualification for women regarding their right of inheritance. Until now, they could not ask for a share if the property h...

n a landmark judgment, a full bench comprising of  Mohit Shah CJ, MS Sanklecha and MS Sonak, JJ. held that the daughters alive on September 9, 2005 would be entitled to equal rights in ancestral property. Earlier, a division bench in the case of Vaishali S. Ganorkar vs. Satish Keshavrao Ganorkar 2012 (5) Bom CR 210 had upheld the prospective operation of the  Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 which in effect disentitled all daughters born before 9 September 2005 to claim their equal interest in the Joint HUF. A single bench comprising of RG Ketkar, J. disagreed with the decision of the Ganorkar case and concluded that the amended Section 6 had retrospective effect from the date of the enactment of the Principal Act and is applicable to all daughters who are born before or after 2005 as a daughter becomes a coparcener in her own right by  her birth itself.  When the matter was referred to this Court, the Court agreed with the decision of Justice Ketkar. The Cour...