 on behalf of beyond our CLC and through criminal associates. We welcome you all with senior advocate Amit Kumar Deshpande, who all we know that his knowledge on different issues of law has always been well received. And today's topic, as in when we were talking with him, the common bottom line was coming that we should do something on metakstra. So ancestral properties as with the metakstra and the changes which have brought forth in the Hindu Succession Act is the topic which we will take today forward. And since as we normally speak, once one person is from the Bangalore, et cetera, we asked the victim who is a close friend of ours, though virtually we have met him so many times. I'll ask him to share his insights about Mr. Amit and the topic for today. And then we request Mr. Amit Deshpande to share his knowledge. Over to you, Dr. Vikram. Thank you, Vikas sir. And it's a pleasure and it's an honor to speak about the learned senior advocate Amit Kumar Deshpande, sir. Sir is not apparently from Bangalore, as you mentioned, sir is from Kalburgi. And he is mainly practicing before the Kalburgi bench. And sir has vast knowledge and several facets of law. And yet again, it is an opportunity for us to here, sir, on a particular aspect, more particularly from the academic perspective, there on my personal behalf, as well as on behalf of Beyond Law CLC and Mr. Vikas Chhatrat, I extend a very warm welcome to you, sir. Thank you. I also welcome all the participants who have logged in on Zoom, as well as who are watching this live on YouTube. Over to you, sir. Over to you, sir. Yes, sir. Shall I start now? Yeah. Yes, sir. So first of all greetings and namaste to all. Thanks that you have taken out time to log in and have a discussion over this session. Before I would commence with the topic, I wanted to bring to the notice of all the people here that Mitakshara, a commentary on Yatneval Ke Smruti, is authored by Vidyaneshwar. His lordship, Justice M. Rama Joyce, who also was the governor of Bihar and Jharkhand, had found the inscriptions near a place in Karnataka, in the northern part of Karnataka, where just near 15 kilometers away from my hometown, Bulbarga or Kalburgi, in a place named Murtur, that this Vidyaneshwar, the author of Mitakshara Hale, and had actually authored Mitakshara from this place, Murtur in Kalburgi. A big vast Vidyaneshwar Bhavan is built in Murtur by the aid of his lordship, Justice M. Rama Joyce. All stalwarts of law have visited this place. I would request all of you who are interested in learning the original text of Mitakshara and learning the other principles related to Hindu law. Kindly visit this place, see the overwhelming collection of books, the library, maintained by Justice Rama Joyce, and now taken forth by few people in trust. As you all know, for every civil lawyer, one of the most basic and fundamental requirements is to know the law of succession. Across all jurisdictions, across all jurisprudences, law of succession is always a matter of importance. Therefore, this session, I have taken it as an opportunity to evoke and create some interest among the students of law, young lawyers, and others interested in this to have an in-depth insights and learning, an attempt to learn more, the concepts of Hindu law. Of course, Mitakshara doesn't deal with only inheritance or devolution or succession of property among Hindus. It doesn't deal with only ancestral property. It deals with several chapters and several aspects, including one aspect of how a judge should be chosen, what should be his qualities. Several such aspects are found in the original text of Mitakshara. Anybody interested may actually have a look at that text to know how the pre-British Indian or Bharatiya jurisprudence was actually working well. Now coming to the topic, when we are speaking of property, we all know property includes immobile property and mobile property. Across all the other jurisdictions and jurisprudences in the world, property owned by a person is succeeded to by the heirs of that person only upon the death of that person. I haven't come across any other jurisprudence or jurisdiction in the world except the jurisprudence, except the Hindu jurisprudence where right to property is available in a person from his birth and is not depended only upon the death of another person. Therefore this marks a very unique distinction between the principles of Hindu succession or inheritance and evolution and the principles of other jurisdictions and jurisprudences. We all know that the law recognizes the existence of what we reckon as the joint Hindu family. It is presumed that the normal condition of a Hindu is that he is in a joint Hindu family. However, this presumption doesn't carry with it the presumption that such joint Hindu family possesses joint Hindu family property also. It is required to be kept in your mind. This distinction between the two presumptions, one which is available and the other which is not available but has to be proved by sufficient evidence in the courts. Now a joint Hindu family consists of all persons who are linearly descended from common ancestor and includes the wives and unmarried daughters. Wives of all the male persons. While we are thinking of a joint Hindu family which consists of a broader number of persons, a narrower body in the Hindu joint family is a Hindu coppersonary. Hindu coppersonary as classically understood that is before the enactment of the Hindu succession at 1956, Hindu coppersonary consisted of all the male members of the joint family who are related to the present holder of the property up to the next three generations. In that way, if there is a person A, the propositors or the head of the family being male, his son, his grandson and his great grandsons all together would have constituted a Hindu coppersonary within the Hindu joint family. This Hindu coppersonary is a creation of law. It is stated that it cannot be created by agreement of members. However, an exception is that when there is a partition in the family and there is a reunion after the partition, then that's an agreement by which a coppersonary is recreated probably. With this exception, the Hindu coppersonary is a separate family, is a separate legal entity and is different from the joint family, Hindu joint family as such. As I had told earlier, as it is very unique to only Hindu jurisprudence, the members of this Hindu coppersonary acquire right and interest in the property of the joint family by birth. The sons, the grandsons and the great grandsons of the present holder of the joint family for the time being would all acquire an undivided and uncertain share in the joint coppersonary property held by the joint family. This was a concept which was known to the Bharatiya society, the Indian society. Mithakshara, one of the commentaries on Yadnaval Keshmodupi had described and enunciated several principles related to the inheritance and evolution and the characteristics of this coppersonary property and the copersonal rights. This Mithakshara and its principles with little variations through different commentaries of different authors was applicable to the whole of the country, accepting the states of West Bengal and few parts of Assam, as it said, somewhere where probably another commentary named the Dayabhaga was more applied. Mithakshara has been varied by few texts, say in the Konkan region or in the Bombay region. Otherwise, all the four schools of the Mithakshara Hindu law, the Bombay school, the Madara school, the Mithila school, the Maharas school, all the four schools have the common principles made applicable to the succession or the inheritance and evolution. Today, what is more important for us to understand is what are the basic characteristics of the coppersonary and the rights of the coppersoners over the property? Now, before that, we need to understand that property can be held by a person as his self-acquisition, as his separate property, or it could be a property which has devolved upon him through his ancestors. What we can broadly call as ancestral property is the property held by a person which has come to him through his father, father's father or father's father's father. Now, a property which has come to a person through any of his other relatives, though it would not be his self-acquired property, would also not constitute his ancestral property. So therefore, it is important to note that the property derived by a person from other relatives would not fall within the definition of ancestral property. Whereas, ancestral property would only mean that property which is derived upon him from his father, grandfather, or the great grandfather. Now, if it's an ancestral property which has derived into the holder of the property then, then as I told you earlier, he would not be the sole owner of the property, but he would have a share and interest in the property along with his sons, grandsons and great grandsons. So therefore, how would the other members of this co-personality actually get their rights defined? The shares and the interests defined in this co-personality property. What are the characteristics of this property? We saw the members of the co-personality. This is required to be understood with reference to certain principles enunciated in the text of Mitakshara, iterated, reiterated, emphasized and re-emphasized through several judgments of various high courts earlier and the honorable Supreme Court of India also. The incidence of co-personality property is that all the members of the family, all the members of the co-personality have a common ownership, they have unity of possession. Each member, though has only an unasserted share in the property, has commensality of ownership over the whole extent of the property along with the other co-personality. This is also very unique to the Mitakshara co-personality property. And each member of the co-personality co-personality has got an indefensible right to claim partition during the lifetime of his other, his parents, his father, father's father or the great grandfather. When he seeks for a partition or division of the co-personality property, the Shastric Hindu law, Shastric Hindu law in the sense the classical Hindu law or the Hindu law as was applicable prior to the enactment of Hindu Succession Act or the earlier enactments which dealt with succession or inheritance to the property held by a Hindu. Mitakshara had stated, as also few other authors and commentators earlier had stated that it is only in exceptional circumstances that a partition should happen in the family. Otherwise the normal condition of the family should be joint. There were various reasons why it was said so. One was the protection of the, all of the members of the joint family financially, socially and on all other grounds. However, at least by way of an exception, a partition or division of the property was permissible under the Shastric Hindu law, the classical Hindu law. So there a co-personer whenever he seeks partition or division of his share in the property would take to unto himself, carved out that share which he would be entitled to, de-hors the existence of the other living co-personers having their right and share in the property. When in the year 1956, the Hindu Succession Act was enacted. There were certain changes that were made to this classical text, the principles under the classic and the Shastric Hindu law. If we read through the debates of the Rajasabha of the 1954 and 1955, as to what made the law makers to bring in Hindu Succession Act in the form in which it was enacted in the 1956, was that amongst several other causes and reasons, one important factor that weighed in the minds of the law makers was that there was quite a bit of disparity between the rights of the female members of the Hindu joint family and the other members of the family. In order to confer equal rights on the female members of the Hindu joint family, the bill was proposed and after certain debates, the present, the then 1956 act came to be enacted. Now, one important change that we can find is that as was debated in the Rajasabha, pursuant to the joint select committee's discussion, one of the ideas was to make a way, do a way with this joint family concept so that there can be an equal succession, a common principle for succession of the property among the members of the Hindu family. However, a contrary debate was made saying that such step would be not so congenial for the existing situation then and therefore what was ultimately pointed out, what we have coined in was section six of the Hindu Succession Act as it was prior to the amendment 2005. Now, this section six actually stated that the concept of survivorship as was available prior to the 1956 enactment among the co-personers would still continue to be effective. However, with one change in the existence of any female member left behind by the deceased co-personer, the female co-personers, the female members of the female heirs of the deceased co-personer would succeed to the share that the deceased co-personer would have had in the co-personary property. Otherwise, prior to the 1937 act, prior to the Hindu women's right to property act 1937, if one co-personer in the co-personary dies, his right would survive upon the other surviving co-personers. Let us say that there are four brothers A, B, C and D who constitute the co-personary along with other male members of the family. And if A dies, then the interest in the property that A had would not be succeeded by his linear descendants, but would survive upon his brothers B, C and D. That was the principle prior to the 1937 enactment, prior to the 1956 enactment. The 1937 enactment made a small change where the few female members related to the deceased co-personer were given certain right in the property. So far as the interest of that deceased co-personer is concerned. Now, in the year 1956, they retained that principle initially stating that the female co-personers would also get their right to succeed to the interest that is left behind by the deceased co-personer. And if the deceased co-personer has not left behind any female heirs, then the classical principle of survivorship would continue to be effective on such property. Subsequently, however, as everyone of you know, by the amending act number 39 of 2005, the Hindu succession act 1956 is amended, right conferred on a son as a co-personer is now also conferred equally on the daughter of the family, daughter of the co-personer. So from the amendment act 2005, the daughter is also now equally a co-personer and therefore the definition of co-personery as I had told you earlier, will have to be also understood in the context of this change that now it would not only include the male members of the joint family, but also the daughters of the co-personers who would be included within the definition of co-personery, co-personers. However, the daughter is entitled to all the rights like a son in the co-personary property and is also amenable to all the liabilities that the son has. One important aspect we need to know is that when the property is inherited or succeeded by the children of the deceased co-personer, the person who is succeeding to this property would also retain that property as his ancestral property, koa, his children, his grandchildren and his great-grandchildren. This is how the Shastri Khandula would explain the nature of the property held by each person in the co-personary after the earlier co-person of the earlier generation passes away. However, a change is brought in under the Hindu succession at 1956 where the principle of survivorship of the right of the deceased co-personer on the other surviving co-personers is retained when the deceased co-personer does not leave behind any female heir. But if he leaves behind any female heir, then a notional partition is required to be made just before the death of the deceased co-personer. To carve out what would be his share in the co-personary property and whatever is his interest in the co-personary property will be then succeeded to by the heirs enumerated in the schedule to the Hindu succession act applying section eight of the Hindu succession act. Have a very serious look at this. There is an ancestral property consisting of the co-personers. One co-personer passes away leaving behind female heirs and other linear descendants. The female heir would get the right to succeed to the interest of that deceased co-personer under section eight. And now, if she is the daughter after the 2005 amendment, she would also be entitled to a share as a co-personer along with the sons of the deceased co-personer. The difficulty arises when it is to be decided as to what would be the nature of the property that the person who has succeeded to the deceased co-personer under section eight of the act. I would be referring to one decision of the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of C. N. Arunachala Moodliar versus C. A. Muruganatha Moodliar which is reported in AIR 1953 Supreme Court, page 495. Someone can actually type this so that others can note it. I'm very sure that everybody might be knowing this decision, however, for the purpose of learning, we need to note it. AIR 1953 Supreme Court, page 495. One important aspect was discussed in this decision as to the right of the father governed by the Mitakshara law to dispose of immobile property to a stranger without the concurrence of his sons and his right to give away the property under a will or a gift. While discussing this, one of the principles that was noted by the Honorable Supreme Court where the decision is rendered by a bench of three Honorable Judges of the Supreme Court is that when the property as is classically understood is derived from the father, father's father, or the father's father's father would be an ancestral property in the hands of the person who has derived it, then from that understanding of the definition of ancestral property, it was held that the property which a person derives from his father, father's father, or father's father's father would be held by such a person as ancestral property only. Even if it is by way of a will or a gift provided certain circumstances are proved or certain circumstances are existing. That is the will or the gift is made by the person who held this property with an intention to confer that right upon the son. Now this decision in paragraph 10 of the judgment, if I should read says this, the controversy arises on the question as to what kind of interest a son would take in the self-acquired property of his father which he receives by way of gift or testamentary request from him, Visavi, his own male issues. Does it remain self-acquired property in his hands also untrammeled by the rights of his sons and grandsons or does it become ancestral property in his hands though not obtained by descent in which his male issues become co-owner with him? And then referring to various decisions the Honorable Supreme Court in this case has answered the issue. Now this is a decision decided prior to the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act 1956. So this defines what was the understanding of the Shastric principle, the principles under the Shastric Hindu law. If we now go to read a decision in the case of Commissioner of Wealth Tax versus Chandraseen and many other decisions thereafter, especially a decision in the case of Uttam versus Saabhaag Singh and others reported in AIR 2016, Supreme Court 1169. The Supreme Court here, after referring to the decisions of Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur and others versus Chandraseen, reported in AIR 1986, Supreme Court page 1753 and few other decisions holds that a person who has succeeded to the property of his father who was a co-partner in the property would succeed under section eight of the Hindu Succession Act. When he succeeds under section eight of the Hindu Succession Act after a notional partition is made under section six of the Hindu Succession Act. Then because of this enactment and its clear intentment, it cannot be assumed that the person succeeding would hold this property for his children and grandchildren or great-grandchildren or any other heirs because the person succeeding is succeeding under section eight with reference to the schedule to the Hindu Succession act 1956 and the said schedule only refers to those persons who will succeed by implication, the absence of any other heir in the said schedule, the parliament has intended to exclude such a person from succeeding. If the parliament has intended to exclude such a person who is not enumerated in the schedule in the class one and class two of the heirs, then by this principle under the Shastri Hindu law, it cannot be extended and such persons who are excluded expressly cannot now be given the same right again. By this principle, it is held that no other person would get an interest in the person in the property which has been succeeded to by the said person. One of the reasons is also that section four of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 says that any other interpretation or any other principle contrary to this enactment, the enactment prevails and not the earlier interpretation of law continue to be effective. Therefore, this decision which refers to Commissioner of Wealth Tax for the Chandrasein which refers to Yudhishtir versus Ashok Kumar. Yudhishtir versus Ashok Kumar reported in AIR 1987, Supreme Court page 558, then Bhavarsingh versus Poran reported in AIR 2008, Supreme Court 1490, which all decisions basically follow the principle laid down in the case of Chandrasein. Would be stating that there is a complete deviation from the understanding of the concept of co-personality rights and the rights of the co-personals who have succeeded to the property of held by a deceased co-personals. Now with this probably as I understand, there will be a little difficulty in continuing the joint family itself which was one of the reasons for the enactment of 1956 act. I request all of you to read the Rajasabha debates where one of the members of the in the debate had stated that the purpose is to do away with this joint family system for the reason that the difficulties in succession and the anomalies in succession or inequalities in succession should be curtailed. However, after this 2016 decision in the case of Uttam versus Sabha Singh, I have come across another decision of the Honorable Supreme Court rendered by an equal, by the judges of equal strength, by a bench of equal strength. In the case of Arshnur Singh versus Harpal Kaur, this is reported in 2020, volume 14, SCC page 436. In this decision, the Honorable Supreme Court takes note of few of the decisions of the earlier era and then holds that after referring to Uttam versus Sabha Singh also, holds that if there is a sunburn to a coparsner who has succeeded to a coparsnary property, then so far as that succeeding coparsner is concerned, he would begin a fresh talk of his family and therefore the, in the facts of this case, distinguishing the facts of the case of Uttam versus Sabha Singh, the court holds that this would still be an ancestral property. Now, this makes a very interesting reading for a lawyer and therefore I request all of you to have a look at the decision in the case of Uttam versus Sabha Singh and also thoroughly read the facts of that case and thereafter to read the facts of the case of Arshnur Singh versus Harpal Kaur and understand how the Honorable Supreme Court has laid down the principles. The citation of Arshnur Singh versus Harpal Kaur is 2020, volume 14, SCC page 436. One other decision of the month of November 2019 now takes us back to the principle laid down in commission of wealth tax versus Chandraseen and holds that since the schedule enumerating class one and class two airs to the Hindu Succession Act, excludes few airs, the law has to be understood that the co-personer succeeding to the property held by another deceased co-personer would hold it under section eight and would not hold it for and on behalf of the children or the grandchildren or other members who would also come within the definition of co-personers with him. This decision is in the case of Radha Bai versus Ram Narayan rendered on 22nd of November 2019 by a bench of two Honorable Judges of the Honorable Supreme Court in civil appeal number 5889 of 2009. Another decision is in the case of Arumugam versus Ammani Ammal and others in civil appeal number 8642 of 2009 rendered on 8th of January 2020 by a bench of the equal strength of two Honorable Judges where again the principle in the case of commissioner of wealth tax versus Chandraseen has been followed and reiterated. I would request all of you to read these judgments also. I may remind all of you here that in these kind of sessions though it's only one person who is talking and trying to emphasize what are the principles of law this is essentially a session to evoke some interest amongst all the scholars here to have more research to do more research. So what I would be stating is not to be taken as a lecture but is to be taken as information so that all of you can now proceed further to make more deeper research on the issue. What I would like you all to understand is another important factor. Now let us come to all of you who are aware a decision of the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Vinita Sharma versus Rakesh Sharma. Now I had read to you the judgment in the case of Sian Arunachalam Udliar the principle laid down therein then the principle laid down in commissioner of wealth tax versus Chandraseen reiterated in Uttam versus Subhag Singh reiterated in two other subsequent decisions. Now this Vinita Sharma versus Rakesh Sharma has overruled the decision in the case of Prakash versus Pulwati and partly overruled the decision in another case and has held that the amendment made to section six of the Hindu Succession Act where the daughter is now made a coparsner along with the son and is given certain rights and liabilities such amendment is retroactively applicable and few other principles are laid down therein. However, I want to emphasize something different. Kindly read paragraph 28 of the decision where the Supreme Court now holds that in case coparsnery property comes to the hands of a single person temporarily, it would be treated as his separate property but as soon as the son is born, the coparsnery would be revived in terms of the Mitak Sharala. The Supreme Court, this is a bench of three judges refers to two or three earlier decisions. It refers to the case of Sheila Devi versus Lalchand reported in 2006, volume eight, SCC page 581 which in turn has referred to M. Yogendra and others versus Leelamma and others and another decision is referred to in the case of Sita Bhai versus Ramchandra reported in AIR 1970, Supreme Court, page 343. Then referring to the principle of law laid down in the case of state work of India versus Khamandi Ram reported in AIR 1969, Supreme Court, page 1330. Kindly note this AIR 1969, Supreme Court, page 1330 which is a judgment which has clarified all the characteristics of the coparsnery property and so good learning even to just read this one judgment. Now in paragraph 28 of the decision in the case of Vinita Sharma versus Rakesh Sharma and thereafter referring to all these decisions the Supreme Court holds that yes, it is true that the sole coparsner would be holding that property for himself. However, if there is another son born to him then the coparsnery would revive as per the Mithakshara law. Here I would leave it to the audience here the scholarly audience here to now make more research into this and to see if there is any anomaly in the principles of law laid down emanating from two sets of decisions. Right from Sian Arunachal Mudaliar to Uttam versus Sabha Singh to Vinita Sharma. Is there any anomaly in the principles of law laid down if there is any anomaly which of it would be appropriate, justified in the given text of the act and under the principles of the Shastri Kindu law and what should be the interpretation if at all it is required to be given in the context of the enactment so that such scholarly research made by the community of lawyers would be assisting the corpse to arrive at proper decisions in future also based upon such research if necessary. Therefore, my endeavor is neither to tell you how much I have read it nor to exhibit how ill read I am but only as I told you earlier to make you all feel that yes, this is an area into which you all need to make more deeper research and whenever the occasion arises to place it before the court in your arguments in appropriate cases so that there will be better enunciation, deeper enunciation of the law. With this I would request Mr. Vikas and Sri Vikram to permit me to conclude here. I would once again remind all of you to kindly visit the place Murtur in Kalburgi or Gulbarga, the northern part of the state of Karnataka where Vidyaneshwara has authored this text, Mitakshara and even today after enactment of 1956 act also still we are unable to do away with Mitakshara. Mitakshara has still its own effect, is still being useful in deciding cases. Therefore, you all please come here once. Thank you, sir. Thank you, madams. All the elite group of scholarly people here. Thanks a lot for bearing me for this much of time. Mr. Meeth, it was not that one was bearing with you it is in fact a knowledge sharing. Knowledge sharing is always enlightenment of the mind as well as of the soul. This is Rajiv Talwar. He says what happens if a man had two marriages, one is unheard and second is working. Can the earlier wife also become a successor? One is married. Two marriages, one is unheard and second is working. Means second is actually this thing. The unaliment of the marriage has its own effect under the Hindu Marriage Act and therefore... Are you asking whether the earlier wife would be a successor? No. The earlier wife, see in this case the succession opens upon the death of the person who holds the property. As on the date of the death of that person whichever marriage succeeds that person would become the widow who would be succeeding under class one of the Hindu succession act, the schedule to Hindu succession act. Therefore, there is no question of the person whose marriage has been unheard. The widow or the wife or the female I can even call she she cannot even be called as widow. The female whose marriage has been unheard before the death of the person. It is the way it says if a partition occurred prior to 2005 in which daughter was not given any right after the amendment of 2005 will the daughter or her heirs get share in the joint property? Yes, sir. Vinita Sharma versus Rakesh Sharma is the decision which holds the field now which says that if there is an oral partition prior to 2005 then the daughter would still have a right to claim share in the property. The exception is with regard to a registered partition happening prior to 2005 or an oral partition which is evidenced by public records in an exceptional case. So if it is a registered partition the daughter loses her right which is a registered partition prior to 2005. If it is an oral partition which is not evidenced by any public record the daughter would be entitled to a share to reopen that whatever earlier partition had happened and to claim her right as a co-partner along with the other sons. This is Dr. Mohanar Bula writes that it's a great and a vivid presentation. Thank you to Dr. Mohan who is following regularly. We will share the judgments on the book we will ask Mr. Amit to share the total list we will share it on the WhatsApp group. Then Mithesh C.A. asked property granted from government whether it is a joint or a self-acquired property of the father? It is a separate property of the father you can also refer to the commentary on Hindulao by Mulla it is defined as to what are separate properties there are some nine properties which are enumerated in that commentary which are stated to be separate properties and all that probably is based upon some or the other decision of one of the other high courts in the country and therefore for the present we can say that such property would be his separate property. Chandra Shekhar Rao, Vinita Sharma 3-2-6-0-1 of 2018 and date of decision is August 2020 Yes and that is written by Justice Arun Mishra I will ask Mr. Trivikram to share his insights. Trivikram? Yes, thank you sir for our scholarly presentation in fact one of the questions I think that would be valid one asked in the box here is is there any time limit for the daughter to court or claim her father's property from the date of her father's death? Sir there is no time limit for filing a suit for partition because the cause of action to file a suit for partition would be a denial to give her the valid right and till that point of time should continue to remain joined with the others. So therefore there is no limitation as such for that few exceptions are where there is an alienation known to you and if you want to set as an alienation then article there are few articles but otherwise there is no such limitation for asking a share by filing a suit for partition by the daughter. And one question by Mr. Rajiv though it is slightly digress from the main topic I would just really torture sir in a will is it mandatory to state the reason why it is alienated to a particular person or son? The courts if we go through the principles of law laid down by the courts it is not necessary that it should be clearly stated in the will why he is disposing of the will and bequeathing the property in favor of one person to the exclusion of others. However what we call as suspicious circumstance is what the court would be looking up to to see whether the will is valid or not the will should not be shrouded with suspicious circumstances otherwise it is not mandatory for anybody to write the reason why he is excluding someone and is conferring the benefit on only one auto. This is an issue for a partition filed by the grandson during the life for the father is maintainable under the Hindu Shastra Clause. Yes sir absolutely it is it is maintainable. He is a Kopar sir along with his father and his grandfather and therefore being a Kopar sir he has his own right to carve out during the lifetime of his father and his grandfather whatever interest he has in the Kopar sir property. If the X inherits the 50% property of his grandfather directly in the first case and rest 50% after the death of the person with regard to the question is not very clear is the probate declaration of must to change the Khatha on the basis of a will? So far as I have understood it there cannot be a change of Khatha based upon a disputed will and therefore one has to seek declaration of one's right to the property to claim a change in the Khatha in the revenue records based upon a will because the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to look into the veracity the correctness or otherwise of the will. However I think that's not the topic which we are discussing today That shows that we will have to discuss exclusively on will perhaps a lot of confusions and questions pertaining to will perhaps that could be our next topic of discussion. I think we lost Mr. Vikas for a moment I think he would be re-logging we will just wait for him before we wind up. Sir one question pose in the chat box which I could read in a small time if an unmarried son or daughter how would his assets be who succeeds to his assets kindly refer to the schedule to the 1956 act which describes the heirs who would succeed to there are class 1 and class 2 heirs and according to the entries there whoever is available would succeed just wait for few more seconds before we wind up I want Mr. Vikas also to be present we have lost him because of network issue I understand Mr. Hitesha has asked a question the answer to this question depends on several facts if there was a partition earlier in the 1974 upon and through a unregistered document or which is evidenced by public records now then the daughter or the heirs of the daughter will not be in a position to ask for the share otherwise it would not matter whether that partition which is not what accepted under section 6 of the amendment act 2005 if it is an unregistered partition or a oral partition which is not evidenced by public records then the daughter has got a right to claim partition in the property that is what exactly Vinita Sharma versus Rakesh Sharma judgment deals with the principles of law and the conclusions therein show this one other question is what happens to the female who gets the property under section 6 whether her children sons and daughters would have a right or not obviously her children the daughters and sons will have a right in the property of that female who gets the property under section 6 the children of that female become the class 1 heirs again so they will be entitled to that property Mr. Shashi Kumar has asked this question but yes I will just hear it out sir father had put partition case later it was closed after his death as abated can his children of deceased apply for fresh partition case after 6 years yes sir it can be applied for because suit being abated would not take away the right of any person and the children have their own right to claim the share in the property or their right or interest in the property and therefore they can file a suit again or they can revive the earlier suit by requesting the court to condone the delay so with few exceptions it is permissible more or less we have touched all the questions sir I am not aware whether I was competent to answer any of these questions I have made my attempt without any doubt sir without any doubt clarified and we have given utmost clarity to the topic discussed and you have also you are kind enough to answer other questions which were not actually connected to the main topic of discussion so we have to be more grateful to you for that so I think I am not able to see Mr. Vikas however I think it is time up so once again on my personal behalf and behalf of beyond law CLC any thanks to you for the scholarly presentation enlightening us on particular aspect of law sir thank you so much thanks a lot, thanks everyone