indian supreme court's mistake about hindu ladies' right to property

[Lord ZeN]

Government can make laws with retrospective effect. But they won't in this case, because legally many cases might have already been settled. There is no point digging into all the cases now. So in this case, the law should be left alone.

Poor choice for comparison. What @Sky lord said is correct. You cannot convict a man/woman on the basis of an amended law passed after the act.

.
It seems that the recent verdict of SC is on "ancestral property" not on "self acquired property". The recent SC judgement says that daughter in not entitled to ancestral property of her father who died before September 9 2005. But i think she is entitled to self acquired property of her father even if he died before September 2005. Isn't it correct.

@Aminroop @Sky lord @Bang Galore @jamahir @Guynextdoor2

According to my understanding, the Bangalore high court judgement still protects the claim on self acquired property (of father who died before 2005) by her daughter. If claim on self acquired property is affected then i'm screwed for rest of my life. Are there any legal experts on PDF who can give more clarity on this matter. If you guys know any then please tag.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

do they have SC in Libya?

How did people miss this gem of a post

 

[rubyjackass]

yes, it was good, but what was also good about the 2005 was its clear recognition that from 1947 until 2005, hindu ladies were being done injustice by the brahminical law they were surrounded by.

Agree. It brought real equality between men and women in the eyes of law.

only to reply to the case you present, obviously the sister or sisters have not been given share when it was due to them and the brothers did cheating... now, the brothers are paupers but they themselves must be needing money but instead of doing individual wage-slavery ( jobs ) and not being able to do much about themselves let alone their sisters, they should all ( brothers and sisters ) pool together and start business... the sisters will be given justice this way.

Bhai, there is a moral dilemma here, even for the judges. The brothers were not cheating. They were following the law. Now you are asking the jurists to punish them for whatever was according to law. Most likely the brother and sisters will now be not even on talking terms, much less closer to starting a business. Money breaks families.

but for removal of all such problems and confusions, is the need for ucc but which is only a temporary immediate solution until socialism is applied.

UCC is a socialist measure. What more are you asking for? You want removal of succession laws?

 

[Levina]

Compensated how?

How else?
By giving the daughters their fair share in property.

I understand that a father might have spent his hard earned money for his daughter's marriage (and dowry), in which case it not fair on the girl's part to expect more from her father (assuming the dowry was in cash/gold).

If claim on self acquired property is affected then i'm screwed for rest of my life. Are there any legal experts on PDF who can give more clarity on this matter. If you guys know any then please tag.

I think @Bang Galore might be able to help.

 

[Stag112]

Shouldnt Mullah Jamahir be concerned about the ridiculous denial of inheritance to muslim women under the anti-secular muslim personal laws applicable to Indian muslim women, rather than parade his ignorance rooted in his hindu hatred about legal canons regarding ever progressive hindu society???

 

[Levina]

I think @Bang Galore might be able to help.

@Ivan i think @Dash might also be able to help you in this regard.
Dashyy
pls read his post below...

.
It seems that the recent verdict of SC is on "ancestral property" not on "self acquired property". The recent SC judgement says that daughter in not entitled to ancestral property of her father who died before September 9 2005. But i think she is entitled to self acquired property of her father even if he died before September 2005. Isn't it correct.

@Aminroop @Sky lord @Bang Galore @jamahir @Guynextdoor2

According to my understanding, the Bangalore high court judgement still protects the claim on self acquired property (of father who died before 2005) by her daughter. If claim on self acquired property is affected then i'm screwed for rest of my life. Are there any legal experts on PDF who can give more clarity on this matter. If you guys know any then please tag.

 

[rubyjackass]

.
It seems that the recent verdict of SC is on "ancestral property" not on "self acquired property". The recent SC judgement says that daughter in not entitled to ancestral property of her father who died before September 9 2005. But i think she is entitled to self acquired property of her father even if he died before September 2005. Isn't it correct.

@Aminroop @Sky lord @Bang Galore @jamahir @Guynextdoor2

According to my understanding, the Bangalore high court judgement still protects the claim on self acquired property (of father who died before 2005) by her daughter. If claim on self acquired property is affected then i'm screwed for rest of my life. Are there any legal experts on PDF who can give more clarity on this matter. If you guys know any then please tag.

A father/mother cannot give away ancestral property to any specific child of his. Ancestral property goes to all the children equally by law. In other words you cannot decide the inheritance of what you received as inheritance.

Self-acquired/earned property of a person can be inherited by any successor(need not even be a family member) if the person's will says so. Only in the absence of a will, property will be equally distributed among all the children whether male or female.

I don't know when the law became equal for sons and daughters for unwilled self-acquired property. But I believe it was there for quite some time even before ancestral property got this equality.

 

[Lord ZeN]

@Ivan i think @Dash might also be able to help you in this regard.
Dashyy pls read his post below...

Thanks Levina.
Are @Dash , @Bang Galore lawyers or legal experts by profession.

 

[Levina]

Thanks Levina.
Are @Dash , @Bang Galore lawyers or legal experts by profession.

I've seen them both talk about it, and both of them live in B'lore. Soooo

 

[Lord ZeN]

I don't know when the law became equal for sons and daughters for unwilled self-acquired property. But I believe it was there for quite some time even before ancestral property got this equality.

Yup.. I'm also pretty sure unwilled self-acquired property was equalized before 2005 September judgement. And this current judgement of SC is about claim on ancestral property by a female child with reference to Karnataka high court judgement.

 

[livingdead]

A father/mother cannot give away ancestral property to any specific child of his. Ancestral property goes to all the children equally by law. In other words you cannot decide the inheritance of what you received as inheritance.

Self-acquired/earned property of a person can be inherited by any successor(need not even be a family member) if the person's will says so. Only in the absence of a will, property will be equally distributed among all the children whether male or female.

I don't know when the law became equal for sons and daughters for unwilled self-acquired property. But I believe it was there for quite some time even before ancestral property got this equality.

my knowledge about self aquired property is same as yours, parents can donate it all to charity if they wish. I dont think that has changed.
It also means parents can give whatever they want to their daughter as gift (dowry) when she gets married, and brother cant complain. She still has legal right to equal ancestral property.

 

[Sky lord]

By giving the daughters their fair share in property.

I think we are talking in circles here. Pease re-read post # 6and 7, ignoring the racial slur, and I think you have your answer.

 

[rubyjackass]

No criminal conviction possible in India under an ex post facto law. Even if a law is so legislated.

Obviously this is regarding succession. Not criminal law. Parliament is within its rights to make a law regarding this case with retrospective effect from 2005.

Yes I understand the logic. But those women had the right to property since their birth. If an unamended law was unjust to them then SC should have compensated for it.

Is it? I think right to property is not there since birth. It came after the law got amended.

 

[Bang Galore]

Obviously this is regarding succession. Not criminal law. Parliament is within its rights to make a law regarding this case with retrospective effect from 2005.

My post was specific only to criminal law that was brought into the discussion. You are right that parliament can bring in necessary legislation.

It is not about "can NOT convict", it's about whether SC has the will to convict.

It has nothing to do with "will", it "can not".

 

[Dash]

@Ivan i think @Dash might also be able to help you in this regard.
Dashyy
pls read his post below...

A claim on self acquired property will not be affected by this judgment, unless it has been willed to somebody/something else. You still can/have claim on ancestral property.