I profusely thank you for your illuminating reply.
Satisfying courts is the biggest challenge for the plaintiff, I sense. Usually in our jurisprudence, the onus is on the plaintiff, correct me if I am wrong.
Dear Shri Swami,
Yes, it is for the plaintiff to prove his stand - except rape/molestation and some such other crimes.
When the monies (inherited and self-earned) get mixed up, it is a fertile ground for legal dispute. Assuming that Atma Ram has complied with all IT formalities, how the two streams of income to be distinguished and the saving thereof computed?
Usually when the stakes are high, people go to courts; but people of earlier generations, -- in particular-- have fought over piffling too. This has helped many a lawyer make a livelihood, by specialising in civil suits.
I would like to slightly amend your statement; it was not the piffling cases which made most tabras attracted to the legal profession and make themselves rich, it was the zamindars and the local rulers who provided the manna for the mostly tabra lawyers. So much so, one of the more enlightened native rulers even published a book calling them to avoid costly lawsuits thus enriching the lawyers!!
Any idea on the M.P. Birla- Priyamvada's will?
No, I am not following the developments, pl.
I have heard that as dowry, stri-dana practice was widely prevalent, daughters were not given equal share in the inherited property of the father. Can you please share your knowledge on that?
By the way, though not quite germane to Hindu law, on what grounds the court awarded the share of father's property to Mary Roy (now better known as Arundhati Roy's mother)?
The daughters did not have any right to inheritance till the Hindu Succession Act of 1956. In tabra community since most people were below or just at subsistence levels in those days, this question was hardlt relevant; the daughters used to be married off with some dowry payment, the father would die leaving a large debt burden on the unfortunate son/sons, the younger sons would nicely escape the repayment because the unwritten rule was that the eldest son is responsible for repayment of the parental debt (just as for funeral rites)! But in tabra households with substantial assets, the daughters and sons-in-law ensured that they got their share - may not be exactly by way of the properties - but by way of ornaments, cash, jewellery, including diamond necklaces/nose rings, ear rings even for the grand daughters.
After the 1956 legislation the daughters got their right to inherit but it was not utilised much in courts because, by and large, the old practices were followed. Perhaps still it may be so.
The 2005 amendment gives equal rights for sons and daughters, but I am not aware of any major disputes taken to courts as per this amendment.
Mary Roy got a small share of her father's property as dowry, as was the custom among syrian christians of kerala, but after her father's death, she filed a case for equal rights as her brothers and won her case. The point which is not clear is whether the SC took into account the dowry property in deciding her share, whether dowry was legal for the christians at the time of her marriage, etc. Unless we have the full judgment copy, we won't know such details.
What if the person makes an executor for the will?
Sorry for troubling you,
The executor's responsibility cannot obviously be everlasting; in the case of normal wills his responsibility is over once he identifies the inheritors stated therein, hands over the will or its certified copies to them and, if the will specifies so, ensuring distribution of the shares as prescribed. So, while the executor may be able to ensure the funeral and immediate rights, he will not be able to ensure annual sraaddhas and all.