TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Daughters granted equal coparcenary rights as sons under Hindu Succession Act amendment.</h1> <h3>Vineeta Sharma Versus Rakesh Sharma And Others</h3> Vineeta Sharma Versus Rakesh Sharma And Others - 2020 AIR 3717, 2020 (9) SCC 1, 2020 (8) JT 63, 2020 (9) SCALE 514 Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.2. Retrospective or prospective application of the amended Section 6.3. Rights of daughters as coparceners.4. Validity of oral partitions and unregistered partition deeds.5. Impact of the amendment on pending partition suits and preliminary decrees.Detailed Analysis:1. Interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005:The judgment addresses the conflicting interpretations in Prakash v. Phulavati and Danamma @ Suman Surpur v. Amar regarding Section 6. The Court clarifies that the amended Section 6 confers coparcenary status on daughters by birth, in the same manner as sons, with the same rights and liabilities. This interpretation aims to eliminate gender discrimination and ensure equality.2. Retrospective or Prospective Application of the Amended Section 6:The Court concludes that the amended Section 6 is retroactive, not retrospective. It operates from the date of the amendment (9.9.2005) and applies to daughters born before or after this date. The rights can be claimed by daughters from the date of the amendment, with savings for dispositions, alienations, partitions, or testamentary dispositions that occurred before 20.12.2004.3. Rights of Daughters as Coparceners:The judgment emphasizes that daughters have the same rights as sons in coparcenary property by birth. It is not necessary for the father or any other coparcener to be alive on the date of the amendment for daughters to claim their rights. The Court overrules the view in Prakash v. Phulavati that required both the daughter and the coparcener to be alive on the date of the amendment.4. Validity of Oral Partitions and Unregistered Partition Deeds:The Court addresses the issue of oral partitions and unregistered partition deeds, stating that such partitions cannot be readily accepted under the amended Section 6. The Explanation to Section 6(5) requires partitions to be effected by a registered deed or a court decree. However, in exceptional cases where oral partitions are supported by public documents and contemporaneous evidence, they may be accepted.5. Impact of the Amendment on Pending Partition Suits and Preliminary Decrees:The judgment clarifies that the statutory fiction of partition under the proviso to Section 6 did not bring about an actual partition or disruption of the coparcenary. The daughters are entitled to equal shares in coparcenary property in pending proceedings for final decrees or appeals, even if a preliminary decree has been passed. The Court requests that pending matters be decided within six months to avoid further delays.Conclusion:The judgment overrules the contrary views expressed in Prakash v. Phulavati and Mangammal v. T.B. Raju and partially overrules Danamma @ Suman Surpur v. Amar to the extent it conflicts with this decision. The judgment ensures that daughters have equal rights as sons in coparcenary property, eliminating gender discrimination and upholding the principles of equality and social justice.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
