Vineetha Sharma V Rakesh Sharma” -“Empowerment In Inheritance”

AUTHOR: Aiswini R Pillai, student of Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida.

Abstract

In the Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma case, the modified Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956—which gave daughters the same coparcenary rights as sons was interpreted. The amendment, which went into effect on November 9, 2005, generated concerns regarding whether daughters born before that year might exercise these rights and if the rules would still be in existence if both the father and the daughter were still living on November 9, 2005.
There were divergent opinions in earlier rulings, such as Prakash v. Phulavati and Danamma v. Amar, on whether these rights were prospective or retrospective. A three-judge bench was established to consider relevant matters and provide clarity on the proper interpretation of Section 6 in order to maintain legal consistency in order to resolve these difficulties. The united Hindu family concept and the daughters’ coparcenary rights are at the centre of the lawsuit. In 1956, the Hindu Succession Act was passed. Even though the lawmakers’ goal was to undo the perceived harmful consequences of prejudice in the past, there were several oddities in the legislation’s practical application.

Keywords

Coparcener , Succession, Inheritance, Right to Property ,Daughter, Father

Introduction

Woman were considered as the vulnerable and weak group of the society. From ancient time like from Atharva Veda , women were denied of their rights and the patriarchal system emerged. Women faces inequality every sphere from household to job opportunities. As we become more aware of how crucial women’s empowerment and equality are in the modern world, numerous initiatives are being undertaken.

‘A son is a son till he gets a wife, but a daughter is a daughter all her life.’- A three-judge bench led by Justice Arun Kumar Mishra reaffirmed that the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, which grants daughters equal rights to ancestral property, applies retrospectively.

Facts

Vineeta Sharma asserted coparcenary rights to her ancestral property and filed a lawsuit against her brother Rakesh Sharma and her family. The High Court affirmed the case of Prakash Vs Phulavati, stating that section 6 does not apply retrospectively and requires the coparcener and daughter to be alive at the onset of the amendment act. Her father died before the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, hence she cannot claim coparcenary rights to her ancestral property. She subsequently approached the Supreme Court with the matter.

On the contrary, Gurunalingapa in Danamma@ Suman Surpur & Anr. V. Amar & Ors. passed away in 2001, leaving a widow, two boys, and two daughters. When the section 6 provision that was replaced took effect, Coparcener’s gather was dead. Each of the widow, her sons, and their daughter received a fifth part. There was a legal contradiction as a result of this judgment’s disagreement with the previously cited judgement.

Two judges made up the divisional bench that made the previous two rulings. Thus, a three-judge constitutional bench was established in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma to settle the disputes and provide an accurate interpretation of section 6 of the modified Hindu Succession Act, 2005.

Issues

The ruling of the supreme court addresses the following facts on the issues.
1. whether the father of the coparcener continue to live as he did on November 9, 2005?
2. Is it possible for a daughter born before November 9, 2005, to have the same rights and obligations as a son in a coparcenary relationship?
3 Is the actual division or disruption of coparcenary occur as a result of the statutory fiction of partition imposed by the proviso to section 6 of the Hind Success Act, 1956 as originally enacted?
4 Is it possible for an oral partition plea made after December 20, 2004, to be acknowledged as the legally recognised method of partition?

Legal provision

The Hindu Law of Inheritance Act, 1929- The act brought women into the inheritance scheme, granting rights to three female heirs: son’s daughter, daughter’s daughter, and sister, with limited restrictions on the survivorship rule.

The Hindu Succession Act, 1956- before the enactment of this Act, Hindus were governed by Shastric and Customary Laws. It was differentiated on the basis of caste. The period after 1965 made the devolution of ancestral property on the basis of survivorship rule only. This Act carries Intestate Succession matters only. It applies to Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs.

Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act- Before the 2005 Amendment, if a Hindu male died, his interest in Mitakshara coparcenary property would pass to the surviving coparcenary members by survivorship, not according to the Act. According to this, no female was a member of the Mitakshara coparcenary property, as they were not considered as lineal descendants. Widows, siblings, or other heirs of deceased coparceners had no right to inherit ancestral property; only male lineal descendants could inherit through the survivorship rule. In order to eliminates gender discrimination in coparcenary property, the centre passed the 2005 Amendment Act. Prior to this, the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 was discriminatory because women were not considered coparceners and couldn’t inherit ancestral property by birth, unlike sons.

Coparcenary property- It is inherited from a father, grandfather, or great-grandfather, and a coparcener is someone who inherits by birth. The Hindu Succession Act was created to codify Hindu Law. After the amendment made in 2005, It the law to include daughters as coparceners in coparcenary property. A daughter becomes a coparcener at birth, just like a son. If a Hindu dies, the daughter receives the same share of coparcenary property as a son. A daughter can demand partition of the Hindu Undivided Family property. A daughter can dispose of her share in the coparcenary property as she wishes. If a female coparcener dies before partition, her children are entitled to her share as if the partition had occurred immediately before her death.

Article 14 – This right ensures no person shall be denied equality before the law or the equal protection of laws by the state within the Indian territory .

Article 15 – This article states that no citizen shall be discriminated on any grounds by the state and no citizen can be subject to any discrimination with regard to roads, access to shops, wells and so on . However, this doesn’t restrain state from making any special provision for scheduled caste, scheduled tribes, women, children.

Articles 325, 243D(3), 243T(3)– ensures political rights to women.

Contention

Daughters have been given coparcenary rights to be equal to sons. Excluding these rights would cause discrimination and oppression of daughters, violating fundamental rights. Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, is retroactive, allowing daughters to exercise their coparcenary rights from the commencement of the Act. Daughters become coparceners by birth, with the same rights and liabilities as sons, from the enforcement date of the Amendment Act. The decision in Prakash v. Phulavati incorrectly required a living daughter of a living coparcener on 9th November 2005. Coparcenary rights are by birth, not dependent on the coparcener being alive at the Act’s commencement. The coparcenary continues with surviving coparceners, so the coparcener from whom the daughter inherits need not be alive at the time of the Act’s commencement.

Shri Tushar Mehta stated that, Genuine partitions before 20.12.2004, the date of the amendment bill’s announcement in the Rajya Sabha, should remain untouched to avoid legal complications.

The Solicitor General agreed that a coparcener father need not be alive for the daughter to have coparcenary rights, as the coparcenary continues with other living coparceners.

Shri R. Venkataramani argued that previous judgments deemed the amendment prospective. He contended that the daughter’s equality with the son regarding coparcenary rights is due to the amendment, not birth, and that the father/coparcener must be alive on 09.09.2005 for the daughter to inherit.

Shri V.V.S. Rao noted that the language of the amendment indicates a prospective application, with the daughter’s rights starting from 09.09.2005 and not affecting past transactions. He further argued that the coparcener must be alive on 09.09.2005, as the coparcenary cannot be inherited if disrupted by death or other actions.

Shri Sridhar Potraju, for the respondent, argued that a notional partition should be recognized and that the amendment should not affect settled transactions. He emphasized that liabilities transfer to the daughter only from the amendment date and that past transactions should remain protected.

Shri Amit Pai and Shri Sameer Shrivastav argued that requiring both the coparcener and daughter to be alive after the amendment’s commencement would defeat its purpose. They agreed that the coparcenary arises at birth, except in adoption cases, and that daughters should not partition already divided property.

Decision

The three judge bench constituted of Justice Arun Mishra, Justice S.Abdul Nazeer, Justice M.R.Shah held on basis of past judgments, observed that joint Hindu family property is an unobstructed heritage, meaning the right to partition is absolute and given by birth. In contrast, separate property is obstructed heritage, where the right to ownership and partition depends on the owner’s death.

The court decided that since the right to partition for daughters is created by birth (unobstructed heritage), it doesn’t matter if the father coparcener was alive or dead when the amendment took effect. This overruled the Phulavati vs. Prakash verdict, stating that coparcenary rights pass from father to daughter, not from a living coparcener to a living daughter. The court ruled that Section 6’s provisions are retroactive, not prospective or retrospective. This means daughters have coparcenary rights from 9 November 2005, based on their birth.The court clarified that a notional partition is a legal fiction used to determine each coparcener’s share but is not a final partition. Daughters can claim a share even if a notional partition occurred before 9 November 2005.

The court stated that a preliminary decree is not final. Shares can change due to the birth or death of coparceners. Multiple preliminary decrees can be issued, and the court must consider any legal amendments before issuing a final decree. Daughters can claim coparcenary rights even after a preliminary decree. The court noted that partitions before 20 December 2004 are not invalidated by the amendment. However, partitions after this date must be genuine and registered or effectuated by a court decree.

– Oral partitions cannot be used as a defense unless proven genuine, with a heavy burden of proof on the defense. The court needs to be shown the following documentation in order to support an oral partition:
1. Separate possession: Members of the family must be residing apart, signifying the breakdown of the united Hindu family.
2. Appropriation of revenue: A business must be split and shared, or income should be distributed differently among estranged family members.

3. Entries in income records: These documents ought to attest to the family members’ separation.
4.Other public documents: A formal public document that attests to the partition’s actual implementation is required.

In the absence of such proof, the court will not acknowledge an oral division, guaranteeing that daughters won’t be denied equal rights due to contrived divisions.

Court held that daughters are equal as sons as they have this right by birth and even if the father passed away before 9-9-2005. It upheld that in parental property, daughters too have an equal right and get equal status as son in this case, even though the father passed away prior to the 2005 Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act. The court also declared that the amendment’s rights apply to living daughters of living coparceners as of 09.09.2005, regardless of when the daughters were born.

Relevant case laws

Prakash v Phulavati – 2016

In this case, Justice Amil Dave and Justice A.K. Goyal held that , it is important that father to be alive on 9-9-2005. The right will be devolved to living daughter of a living co-parcener. It made that it is necessary that father should be alive

Danamma v. Amar-2018

The learned justice A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan held that the daughter is having the coparcener right by birth as same as the son. In this case, the father died in 2001 and it challenged the authority of daughter to have the property after the death of the father. Court stated that even though the father was not alive on 9-9-2005, still it will pass to the daughter, overruling the Prakash v. Phulavati case.

As these two judgements are conflicting, Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, gave a satisfactory conclusion.

Conclusion

The case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of India that significantly impacted the rights of daughters in Hindu joint families concerning coparcenary property.The case focused on interpreting Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and whether daughters born before the 2005 amendment were entitled to equal coparcenary rights as sons. The Supreme Court ruled that the amended provisions applied retroactively from the Act’s enactment date, granting daughters equal rights in coparcenary property. The court clarified that daughters have coparcenary rights by birth, regardless of when they were born. The court addressed the issue of notional partitions, emphasizing that partitions after 2004 must be genuine to prevent misuse.

This judgment has significantly impacted gender equality and property rights in Hindu families, ensuring daughters have the same inheritance rights as sons.

References

FAQs

What are Coparcenary Property?

These are ancestral property which have been inherited from ancestors. Coparcenary is a concept in Hindu succession laws where a person inherits legal rights in ancestral property by birth. It signifies the unity of title, position, and interest among family members. This status is solely established by legal provisions and cannot be created through any actions of the parties involved, except in cases of adoption.

Is Right to Property a fundamental right?

The right to property was initially included as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India, which guaranteed the right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property. However, this right was removed from the list of fundamental rights by the 44th Amendment Act in 1978.

Currently, the right to property is not specifically listed as a fundamental right in the Constitution of India. Instead, it is now considered a legal right under Article 300A, which states that no person shall be deprived of their property except by authority of law.

Therefore, while the right to property is no longer a fundamental right in India, it remains a legal right protected by law, and any deprivation of property must be in accordance with established legal procedures and principles.