Author: Jagruti Yadav, a student at Sharda University Greater Noida
ABSTRACT
In this article the historical transition and the process of granting daughter’s rights on the ancestral property has been underlined. This article also gives the complete analysis of the case citing all the related examples and precedents. The main objective of this article is to inform the public of the complexities of the case and make the daughters aware of their rights. It is moral obligation of the society to accept the daughters in the society and provide them with their rightful means to address their ancestral property as their own. This article tells about the famous case of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma where it was legally decided that right to ancestral property is a right which comes by birth of the daughters. And it also establishes the daughters as the coparceners of the ancestral properties. Including this, there were a few similar landmark judgments regarding this matter which are also discussed in this article underlining the historical journey of the daughter’s coparcenary rights.
INTRODUCTION
For a very long time, a very significant area of legal evolution in India has been the rights of daughters on the ancestral property. It also reflects the changes in societal norms and legislative norms.
From the very beginning this inheritance concept was ruled over by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as it abrogated all the other acts, rules or laws applicable related to the Hindu succession. It tells about the procedure of the inheritance and mentions the rules of who will get how much property. Initially daughters did not have equal rights to ancestral property. It is an act which lays down comprehensive and uniform system related to the succession and inheritance of the property. The act is applicable to any person who is Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, or Sikh by religion and it governs whole of India as mentioned under the Section 2 of the Act.
Seemingly, these rules of Hindu personal law are heavily dependent on the two schools of Mitakshara and Dayabhaga. According to the former one there were two forms of devolution of property, i.e. Devolution of Survivorship and Devolution of Succession. The rule of survivorship is only applicable to the case of joint family property and coparcenary property. On the other hand, succession rules apply to separate property held by a person. While the latter one discusses about the succession as the only mode of devolution. The article also discusses about the coparcenary property.
This act talks about two types of property. One is Ancestral Property that is acquired by the ancestors like father, grandfather, or great grandfather. While the second one is Self-Acquired Property which is the one made by us on our own with our own capacity and financial strength.
The act also describes the format of succession. This format depicts that only three generations after the property holder will be eligible to get the share in inheritance. For instance, only the son, grandson and great grandson can get the share of ancestral property. In case of death of any one of these the next in line is given coparcenary rights. These generations are called the Coparceners of the property while all the other members including the coparceners are the members of the family. All the coparceners are the members but not all members are coparceners. This was the notion in practice before the amendment. Coparceners are those members who have a right over the property and they can claim it as well.
Before the amendment of 2005, the Act said that the coparcenary rights only rest with those who are the lineal descendants of the same ancestor. It also means that only male lineage will be included in the rights due to the same bloodline. It also concluded that wife, daughter or widow will not qualify for the coparcenary rights. And this was the reason of emergence of an Amendment in 2005.
AMENDMENT OF 2005
The survivorship rule has been mentioned in the Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. This rule says that the next three generations to the property holder or ancestor will be included in the coparcenary rights. The main criticism of this survivorship rule and this section was that only males were allowed to be the coparcener.
Now, when we talk about the concept of Will, then it is a completely different matter. When a person makes his will then it is up to the person to decide who he wants the give the property to. It could be anyone including females and strangers as well. He is free to decide the division of the property. When this concept comes then it is the Will that is the final judgment and the deciding factor. But any person can make a will only for his self-acquired property and not for ancestral property.
The division for the ancestral property is done on the basis of the governance of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
That is why the need for this amendment is seen. This is when in 2005, the amendment of the act abrogated the Rule of Survivorship and cancelled it. With this the amendment also brought out the concept of Testamentary Succession and Intestate Succession.
Testamentary Succession means to make a testament or a statement. It means to make a will. According to this type of succession we can divide our property to anyone like widow, daughter, son or any known or unknown person.
Intestate succession comes into picture when a person dies without making a will or when the matters are related to the ancestral property inheritance. The division of property in these cases is ruled over by the rules of Intestate succession.
The amendment of 2005 introduced four classes which are Class I, Class II, Class III, and Class IV. These classes include different people. For eg. ClassI includes window, son, daughter etc. The amendment says that the first right after the death of the holder goes to the widow, son and daughter as they belong to Class I. And all three of these are entitled to get equal share of property.
The Hindu Succession Amendment (2005) Act was a landmark change. It granted daughters equal rights on ancestral property on par with sons. According to the amended law, daughters have a right by birth in the ancestral property, and they are coparceners along with sons.
The enforcement date for this amendment of 2005 was chosen to be 9th September 2005.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
The enactment date of the 2005 amendment was 9th of September 2005. This date caused many problems for the future cases. The confusion which was arisen due to this date was that whether the Father or the Property Holder needs to be alive on this date for this Act to be enforceable.
For instance if the property holder had died in 2002 and this law comes in 2005 then do the daughters of that person get the share in property? This was the confusion created due to the enactment date.
The following three cases have tried to solve this mystery and give a clarification but the final answer and clarification of doubt has been given in the case of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma.
- Prakash vs. Phulvati (2016): The presiding bench for this case was of Justice Anil Dave and Justice A.K. Goyal. The judgment of this case said that the property holder has to be living on 9th of September, 2005. It also said that including the coparcener the daughter must also be living on this date for her to be able to claim her share form the ancestral property.
- Danamma Vs. Amar (2018): The bench presiding over this case was of Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan. The judgment of this case said that even if the father dies in 2001 the property will still go to the daughter. It means even if the property holder was not living on the 9th of Sept. the daughter will get the right to claim her share.
These two judgments were conflicting and causing trouble for a lot of future cases. It caused confusion and mayhem in the succession field. There was confusion whether we should follow the first decision or the second judgment. This confusion has been solved by the most recent case. ;
- Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma (2020): There was a bench of two judges in each of the previous cases that is why this time a bench of three judges was seated. The presiding judges were Justice Arun Mishra, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, and Justice M.R. Shah. The Supreme Court simply said that women’s right on the ancestral property is by birth just like the sons. The fact of father being alive or not does not matter. The right of women on ancestral property cannot be snatched away no matter the father is alive or not. Hence supporting the case of Danamma vs. Amar this case decided that daughters can claim their right even if the father is alive or not.
This one case decided all the fortunes and just clarified the confusion created by the previous conflicting cases. Daughters can now claim their share through partition of the HUF property or by legal suit if the property has not been divided.
The practical implication of this case was that the daughters can now approach the civil courts and family courts to enforce their rights if denied by other coparceners. The impact on planning is that the families need to consider these rights in estate planning and partition discussions to ensure equitable distribution.
CONCLUSION
Daughters rights to ancestral property has travelled very long path in history and have undergone significant changes and transition making a progressive shift towards gender equality in inheritance laws. With the amendments to the Hindu Succession Act in 2005 and subsequent judicial interpretations, daughters now enjoy equal rights as sons in ancestral property of Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs).
This evolution ensures that daughters are recognized as coparceners by birth, granting them the right to claim an equal share in ancestral property. These rights are not only prospective but also retrospective, allowing daughters to assert their claims even in properties inherited before the legal amendments.
The impact of these changes is profound, providing daughters with legal recourse to secure their rightful inheritance and promoting gender parity within family structures. This legal framework not only acknowledges the economic independence and empowerment of daughters but also aligns with broader societal goals of gender equity and justice.
In conclusion, while challenges and discrepancies may still exist in the practical implementation of these rights, the legal foundation now firmly supports daughters’ entitlement to ancestral property, thereby advancing principles of fairness and equality in inheritance across India.
Frequently Asked Questions
- From when does the amendment apply?
The Amendment for the Hindu Succession Act was made in 2005 and that amendment was enforced from 9th September 2005.
- Can a daughter claim her share if the father died before the amendment?
Yes, according to the case of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma the daughters can claim their right even if the father died before the amendment as it is her birth right.
- What happens when the property has already been partitioned before the amendment?
If the partition has already happened before the amendment then the daughter cannot claim her share.
