Author: Gauri Shukla, Student at Jagran Lakecity University, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.
Introduction
The Concept of Coparcenary under Hindu Law was based on a patriarchally dominated society. Only the male members of the Joint Hindu Family were seen to act as Coparceners. They are the individuals who gain a legal right to ancestral property through birth and hold the right to initiate the Partition of the property. This system excluded the daughters from inheriting by birth, which in turn limited their financial independence and reinforced gender discrimination and inequalities within the families.
The Mitakshara School, which was rather prevalent in most parts of India except for West Bengal and Assam, asserted that daughters have their rights restricted, mainly as dependents or as heirs through a Will or any intestate succession, though not as coparceners. The Hindu Succession Act, 2005, addressed this issue.
It added a new Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956, stating that Daughters, like Sons, are coparceners by birth. This brought them Equal Rights and Equal Responsibilities in shared property. However, despite these reforms, different High Courts and Supreme Court Rulings in other cases have led to conflicting views and interpretations of the reform. A crucial point of debate is whether the father needs to be alive on the amendment date, September 9, 2005, for the daughter to assert her coparcenary rights.
In the landmark judgement of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma (2020), the Apex Court of India reinforced the right of daughters to have equal coparcenary rights in ancestral property under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The rights are inherited at birth, not just from the amendment date. This case law significantly improved gender equality in Hindu inheritance law by overturning previous conflicting decisions and addressing a long-standing legal issue.
Use Of Legal Terms
Coparcenary: A type of property ownership where multiple people inherit the same property, and each person owns an undivided, transferable interest. Under Hindu Law, only the male members were traditionally seen as joint heirs by birth.
Mitakshara School of Hindu Law: It is a prevalent legal system in India, which mainly governs inheritance and property matters of Hindu families, based on Vijnanesvara’s commentary on Yajnavalkya Smriti.
Partition: Involves legal division of property, whether it is Land, a house or other assets, into individual shares.
Preliminary/ Final Decree: A preliminary decree sets out the initial rights and liabilities of parties but does not fully resolve the suit. It’s a step towards the final resolution, often determining shares or entitlements. A final decree completely settles the dispute and provides a full, enforceable remedy, concluding the case.
Retrospective Application: This means applying the law to events that happened before it was enacted
The Proof
Case Citation-
Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Ors., (2020) 9 SCC 1
Bench: Justice Arun Mishra, Justice Abdul Nazeer, and Justice M.R. Shah
Date of Judgment: August 11, 2020
Abstract:
The Supreme Court’s landmark judgement in Vineeta Sharma’s Case(2020) observed legal differences in how the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, is interpreted. The Court promoted equality under the Constitution and altered the idea of Hindu joint family property by granting daughters coparcenary rights at birth, no matter when they were born or when their father died.
This judgement aligned the legislative interpretation with Article 14 (Right to Equality) of the Constitution and quashed the previous conflicting rulings. This article explains how Vineeta Sharma became a significant milestone in Hindu Succession Law through doctrinal analysis, judicial reasoning, and reference to precedents.
Case
Background-
In this case, the deceased coparcener, Shri Dev Dutt Sharma, after his death, left one widow, one daughter, and three sons. He passed away on the 11th of December, 1999.
One of his unmarried sons also died on the 1st of July, 2001. Hereafter, the daughter, Vineeta Sharma, who is the petitioner in this case, sued her brother Rakesh Sharma and Satyendra Sharma to claim her 1/4th share in the coparcenary property.
Other members of her family opposed her claim and stated that, considering the year in which her father passed away (i.e., 1999), which is before the amendment came to be enforced, she cannot claim to be a coparcener and, hence, has no title over the property of the family.
They also asserted that, considering she was married, she had no claim left to the family, as she is no longer a member of the joint family. And so, she filed a suit against her brothers, Rakesh Sharma and Satyendra Sharma, as well as their mother. She asserted her coparcenary rights on the joint family property based on her birth into the family. The law considers birth as a valid origin of coparcenary rights.
Disappointed by the verdict given by the trial court, which denied her equal shares in the coparcenary property, she challenged the ruling in the Delhi High Court through an appeal. The Delhi High Court sustained the decision of the Trial Court, which stated that section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment)n Act, 2005, will not be applicable in her current situation as her father was not alive during the commencement of the amendment. The decision in this case was based on the ruling provided in the precedent case of Prakash v. Phulwati (2015), in which the court decided that both the father and the daughter should be alive during the commencement of the amendment of 2005 for those amended provisions to be applicable. Such a decision aggrieved the daughter, due to which she filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of India to rethink the matter and reach a judgment.
Issues
1. If the father died before the amendment took effect, can a daughter claim her right as a coparcener under the 2005 amendment?
2. Can the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, be applied to the past events(retrospectively), future events(prospectively), or both?
Observations
The Apex Court stated that a daughter doesn’t need her coparcener father to be alive to claim her coparcenary rights. The determinative factor is that she must be born into a lineage where such rights exist. The amended section 6 does not state “Daughter of a living coparcener”; rather, section 6(1) (a) explicitly provides coparcenary rights to daughters by virtue of birth. This right was formally acknowledged on September 9, 2005, even though its applicability has a retrospective nature or depends on a past event (birth). Daughters hold the same rights in coparcenary property as sons, and hold equal shares in duties according to section 6 (1)(c).
The Term “Coparcener” now includes daughters also, so the law does not require a father or predecessor coparcener to be alive during the time period of amendment for a daughter to claim her rights.
Decision:
The Supreme Court held the following principles: –
The amended provisions of Section 6 vest the status of a coparcener on a daughter born before or after the amendment, and she is subject to the same rights and liabilities as a son.
If born before 09/09/2005, a daughter can assert her rights as per the provisions provided in Section 6(1), which protect any disposition, alienation, or partition that took place before 20/12/2004.
It is not necessary to have a living father on the date of the commencement of the amendment, since coparcenary rights accrue from birth.
The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, will apply Retrospectively.
The Deemed provision of the partition of property as enacted proviso to Section 6 of the unamended Act did not disrupt the coparcenary. The provision was purely to determine the shares of a deceased coparcener, and it cannot be prolonged beyond that.
Case Laws
Prakash v. Phulwati (2016) 2 SCC 36
The decision in this case stated that the said amended provisions of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, cannot be applied retrospectively, and both, father and the daughter need to be alive (for the provisions to stay applicable) at the date of amendment of the provision. This idea prevented many daughters from claiming their rights in the past and was much later overruled in the case of Vineeta Sharma.
Danamma v. Amar (2018) 3 SCC 343
The Supreme Court put an end to Judicial discrepancies in the interpretation of daughters’ inheritance rights. The Case was centred on the issue of whether daughters born before the 2005 amendment could inherit ancestral property as coparceners, even though her father had died before the amendment was enacted.
To which, the Supreme Court’s ruling fell in favour of the daughter, declaring that the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, 2005, which vested daughters with coparcenary rights, can be applied retrospectively. This means that, though her father had died before the amendment, they still hold the power to claim their equal share in the ancestral property.
Ganduri Koteshwaramma v. Chakiri Yanadi (2011) 9 SCC 788
The Court’s decision stated that daughters can file for a claim of partition rights even after a preliminary decree had been made, as long as the final decree was still pending, according to the amended Section 6.
Detailed Analysis:
The 2005 Amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 granted daughters equal coparcenary rights, as sons, in the ancestral property of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). As per the amended provisions:
“From the date of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, comes into effect a daughter of a coparcener shall, by virtue of her birth, be recognized as a coparcener in her own capacity…”
Resolution by the Supreme Court:
In the Vineeta Sharma Case, the Court ruled that-
Under Section 6, the amended right will be in itself at birth and does not depend on whether the father is alive.
The Amendment’s applicability is retrospective and applies to daughters born after 2005.
The Pending suits of partition must comprise the daughters ’ shares, regardless of whether a preliminary decree has been issued or not.
It emphasized:
“Daughters must have the same rights as sons. The Coparcenary status comes by birth, not any event.”
Status of Partitions and Oral Agreements:
Oral partitions or unregistered agreements were not recognized unless they were legally documented or decreed by a court. In rare cases, a defence of an oral partition can be accepted only if it is presented with a setup of reliable documents, in the same manner as a decree of the court.
Partitions that were made before December 20, 2004. The date of the amendment was introduced in the parliament, were protected.
Conclusion
This judgment in the case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) is a milestone that established equal rights for daughters in ancestral property under Hindu Law. The Apex court clarified that daughter are coparceners since birth, regardless of whether their father was alive at the time of the 2005 amendment. The decision secured the consistency of legal interpretation and fortified the principles of equality and non-discrimination defined in the constitution. It also addressed the past conflicting rulings and aligned succession laws with Article 14, pushing forward gender equality in Hindu family law.
The judgment also holds significant social and economic implications. It provides women with their rightful access to family property. The emphasis on documented partitions and on including daughters in ongoing legal proceedings, by the courts, reinforces their rights and strengthens them. Though it proves as a significant step forward, its full effect depends on the continuous legal awareness of its use and effectiveness for its fruitful implementation throughout the society.
Reference
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/67965481/
https://blog.ipleaders.in/vineeta-sharma-vs-rakesh-sharma-2020/
https://www.scobserver.in/journal/court-clarifies-application-of-s-6-of-hindu-succession-act-1956/
https://blog.ipleaders.in/prakash-vs-phulavati-2015/
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/88759498/
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1103994/
FAQs
What is a coparcenary?
It is a legal term under Hindu law, which refers to a group of a Hindu joint family that inherits ancestral property since birth. Before the 2005 amendment, the group included only the male members of the family.
After the 2005 amendment, who can be a coparcener?
Both male and female children/members can be considered as coparceners, after the 2005 amendment, regardless of when they were born. They will be considered coparceners by birth in a Hindu Undivided Family [HUF].
If the father died before 2005, can the daughter still claim her share?
As per the Vineeta Sharma judgement, yes, the daughter can still claim her share in the coparcenary property, even if her father died before 2005.
Does the ruling apply retroactively?
Yes, the Judgment confirms that the ruling applies retroactively.
Does the ruling approve of Oral Partition?
No, generally. Only documented or court-ordered partitions, that too only those made before December 20, 2004, are considered valid for excluding the daughter’s claim.
If a decree was passed before 2005, can a daughter still claim her right to partition?
As long as the final decree has not been passed and implemented. She can claim her right to partition. They should be included in the finalized partition.
Can this be applied to married daughters, too?
Yes, it can be applied to a daughter who has been married off as well. The marital status does not affect her coparcenary rights.
What happens if the property has already been sold off?
If the sale took place before 2005 or before the suit was filed, and if it was considered to be a valid partition and received legal recognition, then challenging it may not be possible. As per the circumstances, it is best to seek out legal advice.
