Originally posted by: Spartan187
https://www.makaan.com/iq/legal-taxes-laws/what-are-property-rights-of-daughters-in-hufs
I am not familiar with the batwara rules in India but after reading this, it says that daughters after they are married or unmarried didn't have the same rights as sons in batwara and it was only after 2005 that they obtained the same rights. So the father has to have died after 2005 for the daughters to have te same rights as the son, if he dies before, then the son still has control to do what he wants.
In terms of the show, i think there's a reason he doesn't want batwara for Rami, did you notice how easily he was going to give land for Mishri's in-laws, i think his gut is telling him not to trust Rami, he heard her talking when she was high on bhang and how she reacted to Lalji when he was caught so maybe he is thinking she has ulterior purposes...maybe there's something with her being Mishri's mom that complicates things
Doc.Love I don't know how I missed this post!! May be for the title...I did not know what was it talking about inside. Anyway, have read through the whole and I found this one as a piece of gem! For now, I would just be elaborating about the batwara (partition) rules in terms of how Wally puts it. In India, among Hindus, we understand property in two categories: -
1.) Joint Family Property 2.) Separate Property. The changes that Wally very rightly pointed out above has happened in 2005 with reference to the Hindu Joint Family Property. No changes have happened in the case of separate property...so, the position laid down in 1956 in the Hindu Succession Act remains. If the lands, haveli, factory etc. in Amboli belonged to Mukhi's father as his separate property (in the sense, that he built the entire empire himself) then all the children...including daughters (married or unmarried) are entitled to equal shares...doesn't matter when (before or after 2005) he died. So, the property in any case is to be divided between all the 4 siblings and that too equally!!! Let us presume, the 2nd situation...that is if the property was a Joint Family or Ancestral Property (i.e. if Mukhi's father and his brothers set up the empire together). In such cases, now after 2005 females/daughters have become coparceners (Sahbhaagi) along with the sons and have the right to own property including immovable property on their own. This is exactly how the Hindu Business Families in India run...like the Ambanis etc. So, here Mishri is entitled as a coparcener (since she was unmarried at the relevant time)...however, Rami, Uma, Mukhiji himself as well as Mishri...are entitled to receive equal shares as the successors to the father's estate. So, Mukhi and Mishri...receive more shares as successors as well as coparceners...but Raami and Uma...get as successors only. So, basically, Raami has all the right and entitlement over her limited share on the property. This discrepancy between the son and the daughter was done away with in 2005.
In India, what happens is, Lands, Houses etc. bring in an emotional attachment and therefore talking about Batwara or the very thought of separating these from oneself is a difficult decision emotionally.
However, I would have been very happy if Mukhi proceeded with Batwara...because he would have done the right thing, legally as well as morally. Raami has the title over her share. Secondly, I find it extremely demeaning when the makers always show the villains, vamps or uncaring son or rude daughter-in-law in the shows demanding 'partition'...as if they are trying to break a family and its bonds. Everyone has a right over the joint family property by being related to each other by blood or adoption. Why is it shown to be such a big deal?? Just because of such a negative perception, many married girls in India, do not demand a share in her father's property...in favour of her brother...she believes in giving up her share in the name of her brother...so as not to ruin good relations with her brother and his family...as for a married woman in India (after the parents) its only the male sibling that can be considered her roots or remind her of her Maayka. So, she is conditioned to play this moralistic ideal card and made to sacrifice..something that just belongs to her... in the name of preserving the ties with her brothers. I really think, instead of concentrating on giving dowry...the society in general and the TV shows in particular must be shown to be concentrating on equal property rights of the girl child (Show the correct legal position). I appeal to everyone, including the CVs...not to portray Batwaara as something villainous...or as something destroying families. It is there to give equal rights to everyone in the family. Once again Lovely Lovely Post!!👏👏
Anupamaa
