Supreme Court Affirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters Under Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005

Daughters recognized as coparceners by birth with equal rights and liabilities as sons; prior partitions before December 20, 2004, remain unaffected; oral partitions require stringent proof

In a landmark judgment delivered on August 11, 2020, the Supreme Court of India clarified and settled the law relating to daughters’ rights in Hindu Mitakshara coparcenary property as per the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The Constitution Bench, comprising Justices Arun Mishra, S. Abdul Nazeer, and M.R. Shah, addressed conflicting precedents and pronounced that daughters are entitled to equal coparcenary rights by birth, with the same rights and liabilities as sons, irrespective of whether their father (coparcener) was alive on the date of the amendment.

The Court emphasized that the right of a daughter to coparcenary property is a birthright, akin to sons, and does not depend on the survival of the father or any other coparcener as on September 9, 2005, the date the amendment came into effect. This recognition aligns with the constitutional mandate of gender equality, rectifying the historical discrimination that excluded daughters from coparcenary rights under Hindu Mitakshara law.

The judgment overruled earlier conflicting decisions such as Prakash v. Phulavati (2016), which had restricted the right of daughters to those whose fathers were alive on the amendment date. The Court held that the concept of “living coparcener” as a prerequisite is incorrect because the coparcenary interest is acquired by birth and not by inheritance or survivorship.

Furthermore, the Court clarified that the amendment’s operation is retroactive in the sense that daughters born before 2005 can claim rights starting from the amendment’s commencement date, but it is not retrospective to invalidate prior transactions. The proviso to Section 6(1) and Section 6(5) protects all partitions, alienations, dispositions, and testamentary transfers made before December 20, 2004, ensuring legal certainty and protection of vested rights.

Importantly, the Court addressed the issue of partition, stating that daughters, now coparceners, can claim partition of the coparcenary property, which is an inherent right of a coparcener. The shares are to be determined at the time of actual partition, taking into account changes due to births or deaths in the family. The Court distinguished between notional/statutory partitions (legal fictions for ascertaining shares) and actual partitions (effected by registered deeds or court decrees).

The Court imposed a rigorous standard for accepting pleas of oral partition or unregistered memorandum of partition, which were common historically but are now excluded under the amended Section 6(5). Oral partitions will not be readily accepted unless supported by cogent, contemporaneous, and impeccable documentary evidence akin to a registered deed or court decree. This safeguard aims to prevent fraudulent or collusive attempts to defeat daughters’ rights under the amendment.

The judgment underscores that pending suits for partition initiated before the amendment but not finalized by a final decree must be decided in light of the amended law, allowing daughters to claim their rightful shares. The Court directed that such matters be disposed of expeditiously, preferably within six months, to uphold the daughters’ rights without undue delay.

The case clarifies that the Hindu coparcenary is a legal entity created by birth, with fluctuating shares that change with the birth or death of coparceners until partition. The daughter’s inclusion expands the coparcenary and alters shares but does not invalidate prior partitions or family arrangements validly effected before December 20, 2004.

This authoritative pronouncement ensures gender justice in ancestral property rights, aligning Hindu law with constitutional values and social justice imperatives.

Statutory provisions

Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 6 (as amended by Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005), Section 6(1), Section 6(3), Section 6(5), Explanation to Section 6(5)

Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 1736329