Equal Inheritance Rights for Daughters: Landmark Judgment on Hindu Succession Act

The legal landscape of inheritance and coparcenary rights under Hindu law underwent a revolutionary transformation with the amendment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Ors. addressed the longstanding issue of gender discrimination in Hindu coparcenary law and provided much-needed clarity on the retrospective application of the 2005 amendment.

The judgment examined conflicting decisions and settled the interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, emphasizing the principle that daughters, like sons, become coparceners by birth and are entitled to an equal share in ancestral property, regardless of whether their father was alive at the time of the amendment.

Background of the Case

The key legal question in the case revolved around the interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, as amended in 2005. The amendment sought to rectify gender-based inequalities by granting daughters equal coparcenary rights in their father’s ancestral property. However, conflicting decisions in earlier cases—Prakash v. Phulavati (2016) and Danamma @ Suman Surpur v. Amar (2018)—had led to uncertainty in the law. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma aimed to resolve these discrepancies.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner’s Arguments

• The amendment to Section 6 was intended to be retroactive, giving daughters rights by birth, just as sons had.
• The existence of the father at the time of the amendment should not be a precondition for a daughter to claim her share in the property.
• Gender-based discrimination was unconstitutional, and the amendment sought to ensure equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
• The decision in Prakash v. Phulavati, which held that the father must be alive on the date of the amendment, was incorrect and needed to be reconsidered.

Respondent’s Arguments

• The amendment should not apply retrospectively, as it would disrupt settled inheritance claims.
• If a coparcener (father) had passed away before 2005, the property would have already devolved to the remaining coparceners as per the previous law.
• The ruling in Prakash v. Phulavati correctly interpreted the amendment as being prospective and should be upheld.

Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court, in a historic judgment, overruled Prakash v. Phulavati and reaffirmed the reasoning in Danamma, holding that:

• The right of daughters to inherit as coparceners is by birth, and it is not contingent upon whether the father was alive on the date of the amendment.
• The amendment applies retroactively, meaning daughters born before or after 2005 are entitled to a share in the ancestral property.
• Coparcenary rights do not depend on the death of the father but arise due to birth within a Hindu joint family.
• Any alienation or partition of property before December 20, 2004 (the date the bill was introduced) would remain valid and would not be reopened.

The Court made it clear that the legislative intent behind the amendment was to remove discrimination, and thus, it should be applied in a manner that fulfills its objective.

Implications of the Judgment

This landmark ruling carries significant implications:

• Equal Rights: Daughters, regardless of their date of birth, now have the same coparcenary rights as sons.
• Legal Certainty: The confusion created by earlier conflicting judgments has been resolved.
• Protection of Past Transactions: The ruling safeguards transactions completed before December 20, 2004, ensuring no disruption to settled cases.
• Gender Justice: The judgment reinforces the constitutional principle of equality by ensuring daughters receive their rightful share in ancestral property.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma is a landmark decision that upholds gender equality and corrects historical injustices in Hindu succession law. It ensures that daughters are recognized as equal stakeholders in their ancestral property, fulfilling the legislative intent of the 2005 amendment. This judgment serves as a vital step toward eliminating gender-based discrimination in property rights under Hindu law.

Petitioner Name: Vineeta Sharma.
Respondent Name: Rakesh Sharma & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Arun Mishra.
Place Of Incident: India.
Judgment Date: 11-08-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma & Ors. Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 11-08-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Succession and Wills
See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Arun Mishra
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category