Inheritance - boys vs girls

[kunjuppu]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

i have come across, much to my distress, close families, where in these days, boys and girls are treated and considered equals - except when it comes to inheritance.

a family of 3 girls and a boy - token stuff to two girls, none to one, and a property worth 10 crores rupees (that is $ 2 million dolla to the americans) to the only son.

i was told that this was asian values, by folks, who often mocked me, for my american values.

to me, an asian value, was something where they put the family first, instead of the individual.

in this case, even though the parents might be default, if it were me, the son - i would, offer my sisters, after deducting legitimate extra expenses incurred to take care of parents, divide the property equally.

even 10 years ago, prior to the real estate boom, the value of the houses & land were modest in places like chennai. today a small strip is worth in crorers which makes all inherited values lopsided.

the parents still appear steeped in the son's importance re inheritance - and often cut out the daughters - as a matter of fact.

and the sons, instead of rising up to the occassion, appear contented to grab the million dollars. which is a shame.

how can these men, expect their nephews and nieces, through their sisters, to have any respect for them?

 

[biswa]

Mr. Kunjuppu, who decided on the distribution? Did the parents make a will? If not, then cant the heirs fight it out in court or otherwise.

In my case, my parents left without a will, and it did not occur to either me or my sister how to divide if not equally. In fact, I wanted to give her more, because she was not earning much. Thankfully neither her husband nor my wife was interested, so that simplified the situation. I think it all boils down to values and education.

 

[kunjuppu]

thanks biswa. i was hoping for some more input.

i think i was not very clear. i am looking at this from a moral and today's societal values' viewpoint.

the parents' intention is to give everything to the son. but i am questioning the son blindly accepting it. he grew up in the household, where the sisters at various times contributed to the home. also his career start was enabled by the sisters.

none of the sisters would discriminate against THEIR daughters, and would divide the property equally on their death. so would the son i imagine.

is there not a moral obligation, for the son, since they all came from the same womb, to divide equally? is this not the asian value of putting the family above everything? we condemn the west, but are we not even baser than the west, when we try to deprive our own blood of what is morally theirs. in this case, it is a jackpot worth over 10 crores ie over $2 million dollars.

my question is not legally originated. the parents want to give everything to the son. and naamams for the daughters. even though the daughters worked, paid for their own weddings, and helped out in household expenses.

ps..in my own case, it was similar to yours. mom had only a few jewels left for us. i offered it all to my sister, who did the same to me. while we were arguing, my aunt stepped in, divvied up the jewels. and that was it.

 

[Raji Ram]

Dear Kunjuppu Sir,

I think the law is for equal distribution, unless the daughters give in writing that they do not want to inherit the property.

One of our friend mamis re-made all her jewels into four equal sets of bangles and chains so that after her demise her

four daughters will not fight!

 

[kunjuppu]

thanks raji.

the law is clear if there is no will.

if there is a will as in this case, willing everything to the son, my view, does not the son have a moral obligation to share his windfall with his sisters? it is one of values and family bond, as biswa suggested.

parents, if they want the children to maintain bonds, should be equal in their distribution of inheritance. cannot show favouritism and expect children to be fond of each other after parents' demise. i think.

 

[sangom]

i have come across, much to my distress, close families, where in these days, boys and girls are treated and considered equals - except when it comes to inheritance.

a family of 3 girls and a boy - token stuff to two girls, none to one, and a property worth 10 crores rupees (that is $ 2 million dolla to the americans) to the only son.

i was told that this was asian values, by folks, who often mocked me, for my american values.

to me, an asian value, was something where they put the family first, instead of the individual.

in this case, even though the parents might be default, if it were me, the son - i would, offer my sisters, after deducting legitimate extra expenses incurred to take care of parents, divide the property equally.

even 10 years ago, prior to the real estate boom, the value of the houses & land were modest in places like chennai. today a small strip is worth in crorers which makes all inherited values lopsided.

the parents still appear steeped in the son's importance re inheritance - and often cut out the daughters - as a matter of fact.

and the sons, instead of rising up to the occassion, appear contented to grab the million dollars. which is a shame.

how can these men, expect their nephews and nieces, through their sisters, to have any respect for them?

Dear Kumjuppu,

You say that "today a small strip is worth in crorers which makes all inherited values lopsided." I agree. Therefore, is it correct to go by money value alone? I can give a concrete example. The parents had given jewellery of 25 sovereigns to two daughters and had also given, besides this, dowry of about Rs. 10,000/= or 20,000/= to the two daughters who were married in the years 1956 and 1971. As usual there were the minimum requirement of silver items, and the moneys spent on the marriage. The daughters could have lived well enough but one did not because her husband was more of a spendthrift and for the last few years he became completely bedridden due to paralysis.

The deposits etc., in the name of the mother who died later were divided between the two daughters and one son who had a mentally retarded child to look after. The sister of this handicapped boy was brought up by the grandmother and so, as a token of her affection she gave a major portion of her ornaments (about 25 sovereigns) to this grand daughter. But the two daughters became unhappy, were cross with their mother and showed their displeasure in not getting equal share with the grand daughter, that finally, this was acceded to. 25 sovereigns at the time of this division would have cost somewhere about 3 lakhs only.

Hence, it is not a question of the monetary value alone which works in the minds of the daughters, I think. They tend to forget that, as per our Indian values, the girl gets a good amount from her parents by way of jewellery etc., at the time of marriage. Education today is equal to sons and daughters so the parents spend for the daughetrs' education also as much as they do for the son. Still, problems are created by daughters, if a 6cents plot and a two-storey house is bequeathed to the son who has to perform the Shraaddhas as per our religion, on the basis of monetary values alone.

I feel it is not a desirable tendency.

 

[kunjuppu]

....

Hence, it is not a question of the monetary value alone which works in the minds of the daughters, I think. They tend to forget that, as per our Indian values, the girl gets a good amount from her parents by way of jewellery etc., at the time of marriage. Education today is equal to sons and daughters so the parents spend for the daughetrs' education also as much as they do for the son. Still, problems are created by daughters, if a 6cents plot and a two-storey house is bequeathed to the son who has to perform the Shraaddhas as per our religion, on the basis of monetary values alone.

I feel it is not a desirable tendency.

aah sangom,

you have brought up another interesting point. i heard the same in the neeya naana show a few months back.

one girl said this: parents spend 20 lakhs in her wedding. now the brother gets the property worth 20 crores. where is the fairness in that? to which, the brother, who was present, replied, that he needed the money as a safekeep, in case the sister became widowed, he would help her. that was the strongest arguement put forth, which was even pooh poohd by gopinath the compere of the show.

re doing shraddham every year, may cost a few thousands.

i agree that sons invariably many cases inherit the take care of parents - but what is that worth, when you look at a 20 or 30 crore inheritance?

all i am saying, is with property values being so sky high, it has skewed all sense of proportions, re inheritance. i think, it is time, that parents of our generation, before blindly endowing property to their only son, sit with all the children, discuss what is fair. also get legal help and also, look long term. do you want your children to be more a friend than a foe, after your death.

that is all. there are hard and fast answers here. i think, morality & decency has more to do with it. than legal.

 

[prasad1]

Ancestral properties can not be willed.
The rest of the property is divided equally. They past expenses wedding, education, etc should not figure in this. The person who took care of the person who died should get special shares. It is up to the individual who is giving away his wealth, there will be some bias. Some of the bias is justified, other members may not agree because of greed.

 

[kunjuppu]

Ancestral properties can not be willed.
The rest of the property is divided equally. They past expenses wedding, education, etc should not figure in this. The person who took care of the person who died should get special shares. It is up to the individual who is giving away his wealth, there will be some bias. Some of the bias is justified, other members may not agree because of greed.

prasad,

what i have found, is whether we as a society consider our boys the same as girls.

when we have only girls, there is no issue.

my generation 62 and below, most cases, consider boys girls equal re inheritance.

my parent's generation - 2 close relatives - blatantly favour the son over the daughters - and particularly now with land values being so high, makes instant millionaires of the son for no reason at all, except he is male. seems unfair from my values. that is all.

 

[prasad1]

prasad,

what i have found, is whether we as a society consider our boys the same as girls.

when we have only girls, there is no issue.

my generation 62 and below, most cases, consider boys girls equal re inheritance.

my parent's generation - 2 close relatives - blatantly favour the son over the daughters - and particularly now with land values being so high, makes instant millionaires of the son for no reason at all, except he is male. seems unfair from my values. that is all.

I agree with you POV

 

[sangom]

aah sangom,

you have brought up another interesting point. i heard the same in the neeya naana show a few months back.

one girl said this: parents spend 20 lakhs in her wedding. now the brother gets the property worth 20 crores. where is the fairness in that? to which, the brother, who was present, replied, that he needed the money as a safekeep, in case the sister became widowed, he would help her. that was the strongest arguement put forth, which was even pooh poohd by gopinath the compere of the show.

re doing shraddham every year, may cost a few thousands.

i agree that sons invariably many cases inherit the take care of parents - but what is that worth, when you look at a 20 or 30 crore inheritance?

all i am saying, is with property values being so sky high, it has skewed all sense of proportions, re inheritance. i think, it is time, that parents of our generation, before blindly endowing property to their only son, sit with all the children, discuss what is fair. also get legal help and also, look long term. do you want your children to be more a friend than a foe, after your death.

that is all. there are hard and fast answers here. i think, morality & decency has more to do with it. than legal.

Dear Shri Kunjuppu,

Taking the neeya naana example, what I am saying is that the 20 lakhs or at least the jewellery part should be valued at current market rates and then the interest which would have been enjoyed (notionally) all these years by the daughter should be considered in deciding "equal division".

It is the practice today that most old parent/s stay with their daughter and son-in-law because, at least among our tabra community, it is the wife who calls the shots and the husband is only an obedient servant, and also a வாயில்லாப் பூச்சி (dumb insect). Hence, spending the last days with son (and DIL) has become a fool's option now. Viewed from this angle, may be there is a case for giving much more to the daughter/s.

 

[KR SUBRAHMANYAM]

While it is true that all children should inherit equally, as is well known, it is
taken for granted that the sons alone would take care of their parents' needs.
Why not all the children be it sons or daughters share the responsibility too?

 

[Raji Ram]

.......... It is the practice today that most old parent/s stay with their daughter and son-in-law because, at least among our tabra community, it is the wife who calls the shots and the husband is only an obedient servant, and also a வாயில்லாப் பூச்சி (dumb insect). Hence, spending the last days with son (and DIL) has become a fool's option now. Viewed from this angle, may be there is a case for giving much more to the daughter/s.

You said it, Sir! Since the husband is a வாயில்லாப் பூச்சி (dumb insect), he can only listen to what his wife commands! :whip:

Hence the parents of girls have the upper hand!

See this ad (point to be noted between 8 and 13 seconds!)

​Nana Naani Homes

 

[Raji Ram]

Hope the daughter in the above ad. earned the money to buy the 'house' for her parents.

Otherwise.... Poor 'dumb insect'! hwell:

 

[sankara_sharmah]

Kunjuppu,

You are talking about Fairness, Equality.

These are concepts which the Hindus especially the Brahmins have rejected as Alien concepts thrust by the Westerners.

We talk about Dharma.

Do you see any Adharma in what the father did?

SAD. But true. That is the Indian ethos.

 

[P.J.]

Shri Kunjuppu Sir

You are right, Children of the same parents fight over property dispute and forget their affection to each other; It all depends upon how they are brought up. It is always good and just to treat son and daughter equally in all matters including property matter.

 

[sankara_sharmah]

Equal right for sons and daughters was given in the Indian Law which was stoutly and vehemently opposed by all the Acharyas and the Tamil Brahmin Community in general.

Laws can not change your way of thinking.

Did any of our scriptures support equal rights? They do not.

Tamil Brahmins are a community which seems to think only scriptural references matter and all modern ideas are Alien and should be rejected outright.

Justice and equality are alien concepts not supported by any of our scriptures.

 

[P.J.]

Equal right for sons and daughters was given in the Indian Law which was stoutly and vehemently opposed by all the Acharyas and the Tamil Brahmin Community in general.

Laws can not change your way of thinking.

Did any of our scriptures support equal rights? They do not.

Tamil Brahmins are a community which seems to think only scriptural references matter and all modern ideas are Alien and should be rejected outright.

Justice and equality are alien concepts not supported by any of our scriptures.

Sir
Your quote:
Equal right for sons and daughters was given in the Indian Law which was stoutly and vehemently opposed by all the Acharyas and the Tamil Brahmin Community in general.

Do you have any proof for saying so? Can you give the links in support of your statement?
This is a public Forum, and you are critical of our scripture , please provide the link in support of this.

 

[prasad1]

Shri Kunjuppu Sir

You are right, Children of the same parents fight over property dispute and forget their affection to each other; It all depends upon how they are brought up. It is always good and just to treat son and daughter equally in all matters including property matter.

Money matters a lot.
Pahele Paisa Phir bagvan.
[video=youtube;iTfsQDZ6IBY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iTfsQDZ6IBY[/video]

Siblings of people who have nothing to give end up loving each other more than children of rich parents.

 

[sangom]

Hope the daughter in the above ad. earned the money to buy the 'house' for her parents.

Otherwise.... Poor 'dumb insect'! hwell:

Dear Shri RR,

I know a tabra woman who used to demand money from her husband for the "personal services" rendered by her to him and she has now sizeable deposits and assets in her name. Hope the daughter in the ad given by you did not "earn" money similarly!

 

[kunjuppu]

PJ,

here is a wikipedia background to the hindu code bills of 1950, with the role of dr ambedkar and nehru.

if i remember right, even dr rajendra prasad the president of india opposed it, including all mutt heads, proving atleast to me, that they are more mutts than heads

Hindu_code_bills

personally, i am happy it happened.

it emancipated our daughters. removed cobwebs from our thinking, atleast gradually with each generation. also brought in a sense of fairness for the girls with regard to property and inheritance rights.

in my own family, my grandfather's sister, was married off when she was 8 and widowed within 3 months. it was a rich guy who married her but she got zero wealth from the husband because she had no issues. they put mottai on her and she depended on the good will of her brothers to feed her throughout her life. very sad.

whereas her girl cousin, also married off at 8, widowed at 15, months after a boy was born. because the child was a boy, he could own property, and this sister could enjoy the wealth and wielded power and influence over the family, which any judicial dispensation of wealth, would result.

hindu women, prior to 1950, could not own properties. could not inherit. and were considered unfit to be independent - just as the sastras said - ward of the father, husband and son. woe to any woman who through circumstances fell out of this rigid social welfare net.

 

[P.J.]

Sri Kunjuppu Sir
It is really very sad story; i am very sorry.
Although our son or our daughter never bother to ask anything about our property , we have made "settlement deed" and registered it; Since our daughter is in UK and our son in US, they must not have problem in inheriting it after our period.
As long as we are alive , we will be enjoying it.
We have also made complete note about our property document etc where it is kept,whose advise they should take to inherit the property, how they can dispose it etc etc and kept it in
'Drop Box' which can be viewed by both of them.

 

[sankara_sharmah]

There is no point in blaming the Matathipathis. It is not their personal opinion. They knew the opinion of their followers. Most of the Hindus in India were against it. The Matathipathis, Acharyas only represented the general opinion of the community. And they interpreted the scriptures.

Our scriptures tell us that you can get salvation only through a Son. A daughter once married is not even considered a part of the same family. This has been our belief/tradition for thousands of years. We have tried to bring about Social reforms through legislation. Though in many case like Dowry abolition, we have failed, we have succeeded in this.
But no legislation can change the attitude of the community overnight.

There are many Hindus even now who believe that the place for a woman is at home. And that it was wrong to give the woman equal rights in property. They find ways and means of depriving women of their rights.

Tamil Brahmins take great pride in calling themselves traditional Brahmins. Now you have a law which is against the tradition. So if they can they will find ways and means of getting around it.

It is our duty to make the younger generation understand this. We should also be mature enough to understand where tradition has to be given a go bye. Otherwise we would be throwing the baby with the bath water in the name of tradition.

 

[prasad1]

Dear Shri Kunjuppu,

Taking the neeya naana example, what I am saying is that the 20 lakhs or at least the jewellery part should be valued at current market rates and then the interest which would have been enjoyed (notionally) all these years by the daughter should be considered in deciding "equal division".

It is the practice today that most old parent/s stay with their daughter and son-in-law because, at least among our tabra community, it is the wife who calls the shots and the husband is only an obedient servant, and also a வாயில்லாப் பூச்சி (dumb insect). Hence, spending the last days with son (and DIL) has become a fool's option now. Viewed from this angle, may be there is a case for giving much more to the daughter/s.

What if one son contributed for longer period in a joint family situation. For instance my eldest brother contributed $xxx for 15 years, were as I being the youngest only contributed 5 years, before we all separated. My second brother did almost all physical work in the family.
It is the judgement of the parents, after all it is their money. We should be gracious in accepting their gifts, instead of expecting and being disappointed.

I do not think everybody has expectations and cribs about their share, and also how unfair their parents were.
I for one was very happy with what ever momento I got from my parents.
My wife wrote her share to her sister as she was the one who stayed back in India.

My father during his life time gave all his ancestral property (with our consent) to his brother.

 

[sankara_sharmah]

The problem is that we do not inculcate the value of sharing in our children.

Just to take a case.

In my family

My Father will eat first. If there are other male members they will join him.

Then the children would eat.

Then the women would eat.

So there was no equal sharing of food. If one item gets exhausted the women would not get it.

The same about everything else.

This age old system was neither fair nor equitable.

When our children grew up we shared everything equally. The food was made into four portions and everyone got a share. My wife ensured that. Except on Birthdays whenever I bought some thing I bought two. If it is a fruit it is shared equally. When anything can not be divided equally, every portion gets a letter and my wife would call out "A, B, C or D?" I bought even two Motor cycles.

This is one reason the only child has a problem. It does not know how to share.

These are values which we inculcate in our children. Not by talking. But by example.

I have seen in my brother's house that he does not follow this policy. If he buys fruits, he would eat his fill and then only offer it to the family. Then the Son and then the daughter and wife. No equitable sharing. So the children learn the same values.