Author: Manasvi Katiyar
College: Faculty of Law, Delhi University
To the Point
For many years, sons and daughters were not treated equally when it came to the rights in the ancestral property under the Hindu Law. If we look back into the traditional Mitakshara system of Hindu Law, a son can became a coparcener by birth whereas daughters being a member of the Hindu joint family did not enjoy the same coparcenary rights.
To remove this differentiation, the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 was brought into the light to grant equal right to both sons and daughters in the Hindu Joint family property. Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was substituted by the Amendment Act to grants daughters equal coparcenary rights by birth.
In the case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020), the Supreme Court of India held that daughters acquire coparcenary rights by birth and has same rights and liabilities equal to son, regardless of whether the father was alive on 9 September 2005. This decision became a significant step towards toward granting equal rights in inheritance.
Use of Legal Jargon
Coparcener: Person having legal right in ancestral property by birth. After the 2005 amendment, daughters have same coparcenary status as sons. Coparcenary Property: Ancestral property jointly owned by a Hindu Undivided Family, where members acquire an undivided share and legal right automatically by birth.
Mitakshara coparcenary: A traditional legal framework under Hindu law where family members acquire an automatic right to ancestral property by birth.
Partition: Separating joint family property so that coparcener gets their respective shares.
The Proof
One of the major reasons behind this judgment was the language of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended in 2005. Section 6(1) (a) says that the daughter of a coparcener shall become coparcener by birth in her own right just like son. Section 6(1) (b) says that the daughter of the coparcener shall have same rights in the coparcenary property just like son has. Section 6 (1) (c) of the act says that the daughter of the coparcener shall have same rights and liabilities in the coparcenary property as that of son.
The court relied on this language and ruled out that the father should be alive at the time of amendment if her daughter wants to claim her right in the coparcenary property. Since the law recognise that daughter of the coparcener has coparcenary right by birth, then it doesnot matter whether her father was alive when the amendment came into force.
In addition to this, the court also explained that amendment made after and before 2005 shall be applied to the daughters born during the time to ensure that daughters have not been deprived of their rights on the ground that they were born prior to the amendment. But this does not mean that all previous property disputes could be opened. Section 6 protects some alienation and partitions under the statutory provision.
Another reason behind this judgment was “Oral partition”. In some cases, family member argued that the ancestral property was divided orally to prevent daughters from claiming their rights and shares. The court in this case made it very clear that such claims cannot be administered without proper, reasonable and valid evidence. Section 6 (5) of the amendment act says that, partition shall be recognised through a registered partition deed or a court decree.
Abstract
This Supreme Court case, Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma, is a landmark case regarding the property rights of women under the Hindu succession Act. The origin of this case arises from the various interpretations of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, after it is amendment in 2005 and also involves various case laws.
There were two major issues revolved in this judgment.
a.Whether the daughter who was born before the 2005 amendment act can claim coparcenary rights with effect from 9th September 2005?
b.Whether it is necessary that the father should be living as on 9th September 2005 for the daughter to claim coparcenary rights?
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court resolved these questions and held that daughters of the coparcener become coparcener by birth itself and have same rights and liabilities as that of son. The court also held that the survival of the father was not necessary at the time of Amendment. It also explains that daughters born before and after the amendment act canalso claim such rights.
Case Laws
1. Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020)
• This is the landmark Supreme Court judgment which is delivered by the three-judge bench for resolving the dispute regarding the daughter’s coparcenary rights in Hindu Joint Family property after the amendment made in Hindu Succession Act of 1956 in 2005.
• In this case, the court addresses two critical question- One: Whether the daughters born before the 2005 amendment can claim coparcenary rights? Second: Whetherthe father survival is necessary for such right?
• The court answered these question in this case and establishes that both daughters also has coparcenary rights by birth with effective from 9th September 2005 regardless of whether father is alive on that date.
2. Prakash v. Phulvati (2015)
• In this case, two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India held that the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, only applies to the living daughters of the living coparcenary of 9th September, 2005.
• However, this judgment was overruled by the three-judge Constitutional bench in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma. Therefore, it is not necessary for the coparcener father to be alive on 9th September, 2005.
3. Danamma Alias Suman Surpur and Anr. vs. Amar and Ors (2018)
• In this case, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India held that daughters born before the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 possess same and equal coparcenary rights just like sons.
• This decision in the case under discussion was different from the one in the case of Prakash v. Phulavati. The ambiguity arising out of these two different opinions was clarified by the Supreme Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma.
4. Ganduri Koteshwaramma v. Chakiri Yanadi (2011)
• This case deals with the daughters’ rights in partition proceedings after the 2005 amendment. The court held that daughters has coparcenary rights under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 even if a preliminary decree for partition was passed before the amendment came into effect, as long as a final decree has notyet been passed.
• The Supreme Court of India ruled in favour of the daughters and held that they must be given equal shares in the ancestral property in the final decree.
Conclusion
Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma is a landmark case that grants daughters, rightful status that has long been denied to them under the traditional Hindu Succession Law. Through this judgment, the court made it very clear that daughter’s right in coparcenary property does not depend on whether her father is alive or not. This ruling plays an important part in the Indian history by granting daughters same status as that of sons. The decision of this judgment is also important because this case emerges as a stepping stone or you can say that a steptoward reducing gender inequality or discrimination in inheritance rights and ensuring that all the women or daughters should receive same and equal legal recognition they deserve.
FAQs
1. What was the held in the case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma?
The Supreme Court of India held that daughters are coparcener by birth and have same rights and liabilities as that of son in the Hindu coparcenary property.
2. For the Daughters to claim coparcenary rights in Hindu Joint family property, does her father need to be alive?
No. According to the amended Section 6 of the Amendment Act of 2005, it is not necessary that a father must be alive then only she can claim coparcener right.
3. Can a married daughter claim a share in the coparcenary property?
Yes. A married daughter can also claim a share in the coparcenary property.
4. Does this act also applied to the daughters who were born before 2005?
Yes. Daughters born before or after the amendment can claim coparcenary rights in the Hindu Joint Family property.
5. Why this Judgment is important for women?This judgment is important from the women point of view because it removes gender discrimination and ensures gender equality in inheritance rights by giving daughters same rights and liabilities as that of son.
