Court holds that even if father died before 1956, daughter alive on 09.09.2005 entitled to equal share with son; second preliminary decree to reflect amended Section 6 and death of mother.
In a landmark judgment dated 5 May 2026, the Andhra Pradesh High Court (Division Bench) in the matter of Y. Rukinamma and others vs. Smt. Sagire Nagendramma and others, has upheld the principle that daughters have equal coparcenary rights as sons in Hindu Mitakshara joint family property, as per the substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, amended by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.
The court examined a partition suit filed in 1988 concerning the half share of late Vale Mareppa’s property. The preliminary decree passed by the trial court in 1989 granted a quarter share to the widow (1st plaintiff) but denied any share to the daughter (2nd plaintiff). On appeal, the High Court modified the decree in 2003, granting equal shares of one-sixth each to the widow, son, and daughter. This decree was upheld by the Supreme Court, attaining finality.
However, after the amendment of Section 6 in 2005, which confers equal coparcenary rights on daughters, the applicants (subsequent purchasers from the daughter) sought modification of the preliminary decree to increase the daughter’s share to half the half share of the father (i.e., 1/4th). The trial court initially allowed this modification but was overruled by the High Court in 2023. The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition against the High Court order in 2026.
The Division Bench thoroughly analyzed the impact of the 2005 amendment and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) 9 SCC 1, which clarified that daughters, irrespective of being born before or after the amendment, have the same rights as sons from 09.09.2005 onwards, provided no partition took place before 20.12.2004 and the daughter was alive on the amendment date.
Rejecting the contention that the Hindu Succession Act does not apply when the father died before 1956, the court held that since the property had not been partitioned before 2004 and the daughter was alive on 09.09.2005, the daughter was entitled to equal coparcenary rights. The judgment distinguished earlier rulings that denied daughters’ rights in succession opened before 1956.
Furthermore, the court recognized that more than one preliminary decree can be passed in partition suits where changed circumstances such as death of parties or change in law affect shares. The appellate court decree merges the trial court decree, and only the appellate court can modify the preliminary decree after appeal.
The court modified the preliminary decree dated 26.09.2003 to allot half the half share of the father (i.e., 1/4th of the total property) to both the son and the daughter, reflecting the amended Section 6 and the death of the widow (mother). The share of the deceased widow, initially granted one-sixth, devolves equally on the daughter and the children of the predeceased son as per Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act.
The court clarified that subsequent purchasers from the daughter are entitled only to the share transferred to them by sale deeds, and equity adjustments will be made in the final decree. The trial court was directed to expeditiously pass the final decree in accordance with the modified preliminary decree within six months.
This judgment reaffirms daughters’ equal rights in coparcenary property under the amended Hindu Succession Act and clarifies procedural aspects regarding modification of preliminary decrees in partition suits pending final decree.
Bottom line:-
Hindu Succession Act - The substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 2005 confers equal coparcenary rights on daughters with sons, applicable even where the father died before the Act, if the daughter was alive on 09.09.2005 and no partition was effected before 20.12.2004 - Such changes entitle modification of the preliminary decree before final decree is passed.
Statutory provision(s): Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Section 6 (as substituted by Amendment Act 2005), Section 15; Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order 20 Rule 18, Sections 97, 151, 152; Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Act No.39 of 2005).
This comprehensive report summarizes the judgment’s facts, legal issues, reasoning, and outcome, highlighting the evolving jurisprudence on daughters’ coparcenary rights and procedural nuances in partition suits.
Y. Rukinamma v. Smt. Sagire Nagendramma, (Andhra Pradesh)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2894919
