The Gujarat High Court this week held that a Hindu who believers to another religion won’t lose her entitlement to acquire property under the Hindu Succession Act.
Equity JB Pardiwala likewise held that according to Section 26 of the Act, just kids conceived after a change and their relatives won’t be qualified for acquiring property.
The short certainties of the case are that a Hindu man passed away in October 2004, deserting property for his three youngsters. On his death, his child and one of his little girls (the respondents in the High Court case) were entered in the record of rights by progression vide passage no. 1502. The name of the candidate was not entered, apparently on the grounds that she had changed over to Islam after marriage.
The candidate at that point documented an oath with the end goal of getting her name likewise transformed in the income record. The same was done through income passage no.1668. Her kin tested this section before the Deputy Collector, Vadodara on the ground that the Hindu Succession Act would not have any significant bearing on her, as she had changed over to Islam. The test was expelled.
Unsatisfied with the request, the respondents looked to record an update application before the Collector, who acknowledged the same. The new section made in the income records in this manner stood wiped out. The candidate at that point favored an amendment application before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (SSRD), which was rejected. Accordingly, the candidate tried to challenge this choice under the watchful eye of the High Court.
Showing up for the candidate, Advocate Dhruv Dave presented that just in light of the fact that his customer got hitched to a Muslim and changed over herself by grasping Islam would not scupper her to assert an offer in the hereditary property as per the arrangements of the Hindu Succession Act.
Parthiv Shah, showing up for the respondents, contended the opposite. He additionally guaranteed that the candidate was liable of recording a false sworn statement by attested the same in her name before the transformation.
From a perusing of Section 2 of the Act, Justice Pardiwala arrived at the conclusion that change does not block people from acquiring property under the Act.
“Clarification (a) to Section 2 of the Act influences it to clear that any youngster, honest to goodness or ill-conceived both of whose guardians are Hindus, will be Hindus by religion. Sub-segment (3) to Section 2 of the Act clarifies that the expression “Hindu”, in any part of the Act, might be interpreted as though it incorporated a man, who, however not a Hindu by religion, is, all things considered, a man to whom this Act applies by uprightness of the arrangements contained in this Section.
This clarifies if the guardians are Hindus, at that point, the youngster is additionally represented by the Hindu Law or is a Hindu. Maybe, the Legislature may have thought fit to treat the offspring of the Hindus as Hindus without prior the privilege of legacy by the righteousness of change.”
The judge likewise brought up that however change of religion was considered as reason for relinquishment of legacy before, things have changed since the Caste Disabilities Removal Act.
“Segment 1 of the Caste Disabilities Removal Act entomb alia gives that if any law or (standard) use in drive in India would make a man relinquish his/her rights on property or may in any capacity impede or influence a man’s entitlement to acquire any property, by reason of such individual having denied his/her religion or having been ex-imparted from his/her religion or having been denied of his/her position, at that point such law or (standard) utilization would not be enforceable in any courtroom. The Caste Disabilities Removal Act expects to ensure the individual who disavows his religion.”
The Court additionally shot the contention of the respondent insight that the candidate documented a false sworn statement while endeavoring to get her name changed in the income record.
“By all appearances, I am of the view that with the end goal of getting her name entered in the record of rights, every one of that was important to be shown was, that the candidate is one of the Class-I lawful beneficiaries. It was redundant for her to proclaim that she is hitched to a Muslim and she has grasped Islam by disavowing her Hindu religion.”
The Court closed,
“… a Hindu change over does not lose the privilege to acquire property under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. In this way, the candidate thus is qualified for acquire her offer in her dad’s property and the Hindu Succession Act should apply to her concerning her entitlement to acquire her offer in her dad’s property.”
Equity Pardiwala additionally influenced it to clear Section 26 does not meddle with a change over’s entitlement to acquire property.
“Area 26 of the Hindu Succession Act has no effect on the change over’s entitlement to acquire property from her Hindu relatives and should just apply to the kids conceived after transformation and their relatives.”
Accordingly, the Court suppressed the requests of the SSRD and the Collector, and confirmed the request go by the Deputy Collector.
Reference-
Bar and Bench
Visit our Instagram page @lawyergyan at this link.
