Hindu Succession Act - Rights of daughters in coparcenary property - Pre-Amendment Property Rights Upheld
Rights of daughters under the 2005 amendment do not invalidate any disposition of property made before December 20, 2004.
Kolhapur, September 16, 2025 - In a significant judgment, the Bombay High Court's Circuit Bench at Kolhapur has reaffirmed that property dispositions made before the Hindu Succession Act amendment in 2005 cannot be invalidated by the amendment's provisions. This ruling came in the case of Anusaya Ananda Mamulkar versus Parvati Vasu Patil and others, where the court addressed the retrospective applicability of daughters' rights under the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act.
Presided by Justice S.G. Chapalgaonkar, the bench dealt with a writ petition challenging the execution of a Lok Adalat Award from 2002. The petitioner, Anusaya Ananda Mamulkar, the daughter of the deceased plaintiff Babu, argued against the decree's execution, citing her rights as a coparcener under the 2005 amendment. The amendment grants daughters equal rights in coparcenary property, a significant shift in Hindu succession laws.
The origins of the case trace back to 1992 when Babu filed a suit against his brother Aaba for partition and separate possession of the family property. The brothers reached a settlement in 2002, wherein Babu agreed to sell his share of the property to Aaba for Rs. 1,50,000. This agreement was formalized through a Lok Adalat Award, and Babu received the agreed amount before passing away in 2003, leaving behind daughters Anusaya and Nirmala.
The dispute arose when Aaba's heirs sought to execute the sale deed as per the Lok Adalat's Award. Anusaya objected, referencing the Supreme Court's verdict in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, which upheld daughters' rights irrespective of the father's death prior to the amendment. Anusaya contended that her father had no authority to compromise the property without her consent.
Justice Chapalgaonkar, however, dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act preserves any disposition or alienation of property made before December 20, 2004. The court maintained that rights crystallized in the compromise decree and Lok Adalat Award remain unaffected by the 2005 amendment. The judgment cited previous Supreme Court cases, including Ganduri Koteshwaramma v. Chakiri Yanadi, to underline that the amendment does not impact agreements concluded before its enactment.
The court's decision highlights the enduring validity of pre-amendment property dispositions, securing the rights established in compromise agreements and Lok Adalat Awards. It underscores the legislative intent to protect transactions completed before the law's change, providing clarity on the scope and limits of the 2005 amendment.
The ruling also touches on the ongoing Regular Civil Suit No.244/2017, where Anusaya seeks partition and possession. While the court refrained from commenting on its merits, the decision sets a precedent for similar cases, emphasizing the judiciary's role in interpreting legislative amendments concerning family property rights.
This judgment serves as a vital reference point for legal practitioners and individuals navigating the complexities of inheritance laws post-amendment, reinforcing the importance of understanding the temporal boundaries of legislative changes.
