2020 (8) TMI 571 - SC - Indian Laws

Daughters granted equal coparcenary rights as sons under Hindu Succession Act amendment.

The court clarified that the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confers coparcenary status on daughters by birth, granting them equal ... Daughter as coparcener by birth - prospective operation of statutory amendment - saving of dispositions, alienations and partitions effected before 20.12.2004 - notional/statutory partition for ascertaining share - requirement of registered partition deed or court decree under Explanation to Section 6(5) - effect of preliminary decree in partition suit and power to revise shares in final decree - burden of proof for oral or family partitions post-amendmentDaughter as coparcener by birth - prospective operation of statutory amendment - Whether the substituted Section 6 (Hindu Succession Act, 1956) confers on daughters the status of coparcener by birth and whether the father/coparcener must be alive on 9.9.2005 for the daughter to claim such status. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that the substituted Section 6(1) confers on a daughter the status of a coparcener by birth and that this status is to be recognised with effect from the commencement of the Amendment Act (9.9.2005). Because the statutory declaration is based on the antecedent fact of birth (unobstructed heritage), it is not necessary that the father or other coparcener through whom the relationship is traced be alive on 9.9.2005. The Amendment operates to enlarge the class of coparceners and to enable daughters (born before or after the amendment) to claim rights from 9.9.2005, subject to the statutory savings. The Court rejected the requirement that both daughter and her coparcener must be living on 9.9.2005 as laid down in Prakash v. Phulavati, holding that the statutory language and the nature of coparcenary (rights by birth) do not permit such a restriction. [Paras 63, 69, 75, 129]Daughters born before or after the Amendment are coparceners by birth and may claim rights with effect from 9.9.2005; it is not necessary that the father/coparcener be alive on that date.Saving of dispositions, alienations and partitions effected before 20.12.2004 - requirement of registered partition deed or court decree under Explanation to Section 6(5) - Extent to which the proviso to Section 6(1) and Section 6(5) (with its Explanation) protect antecedent dispositions and define recognized modes of partition. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that the proviso to Section 6(1) and Section 6(5) save dispositions, alienations, partitions and testamentary dispositions effected before 20.12.2004 from being invalidated by the amendment. Parliament deliberately defined 'partition' in the Explanation to Section 6(5) as a partition effected by a registered deed under the Registration Act or by a decree of a court to guard against sham or collusive oral partitions that could defeat the rights conferred on daughters. While oral or family arrangements may still be recognised in exceptional cases, the statutory scheme imposes a strict standard: an oral partition or an unregistered memorandum will be accepted only if supported by cogent, contemporaneous public/documentary evidence and not on mere ipse dixit. The Explanation thus narrows the modes of partition which will operate to bar the operation of the amended Section 6. [Paras 62, 107, 116, 127, 129]Transactions (including partitions) effected before 20.12.2004 are saved; post-amendment pleas of partition must meet the stringent proof standards in light of the Explanation to Section 6(5), and registered deeds or court decrees are the recognised modes of partition for the purposes of Section 6.Notional/statutory partition for ascertaining share - statutory fiction of partition - Whether the statutory notional partition (the deeming fiction) under the unamended Section 6 effected a real disruption of the coparcenary or operated to terminate coparcenary rights. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that the notional or statutory partition used by the unamended proviso to Section 6 was a limited legal fiction employed to ascertain the share of a deceased coparcener for succession purposes; it did not effect an actual partition or bring about disruption of the coparcenary. The fiction is purposive and must be confined to the function for which it was created - to determine the deceased coparcener's share - and cannot be stretched to conclude that coparcenary ceased to exist. Consequently, the existence or continuity of the coparcenary for other purposes remains governed by the operative law on coparcenary and actual partitions. [Paras 101, 129]The statutory notional partition did not bring about actual partition or disruption of the coparcenary; it served only to ascertain the deceased coparcener's share for succession.Effect of preliminary decree in partition suit and power to revise shares in final decree - change in law during pendency of partition proceedings - Whether daughters may obtain recognition of their coparcenary share in partition suits pending final decree (or on appeal) where the amendment came into force during the pendency of proceedings. - HELD THAT: - The Court reaffirmed established principles that a preliminary decree in a partition suit does not finally dispose of the suit and that courts must take notice of changes in law occurring during the pendency of proceedings. If the Amendment Act of 2005 comes into effect before the final determination (final decree), the court is duty-bound to give effect to the changed law and adjust shares accordingly in the final decree or in proceedings for finalisation. Thus, daughters are entitled to have their enlarged rights recognised in pending partition proceedings where the final decree is yet to be drawn, subject to the statutory savings. [Paras 91, 92, 129]Daughters are entitled to have their coparcenary shares recognised in pending partition proceedings and final decrees, and courts must give effect to the Amendment when finalising partition.Burden of proof for oral or family partitions post-amendment - protection against sham or collusive partitions - Standard of proof required to establish oral partitions or unregistered family settlements as operative partitions after the Amendment and the effect of such proof on daughters' rights. - HELD THAT: - Given the legislative policy to prevent sham devices that could nullify daughters' rights, the Court required a heavy burden of proof on parties asserting oral or unregistered family partitions to bar the operation of the amended Section 6. Only in exceptional cases, supported by cogent, contemporaneous public documents and consistent conduct over a long period, will such non-registered partitions be recognised. Mere oral assertion or unregistered memorandum unsupported by strong contemporaneous evidence will not be accepted; courts must therefore scrutinise such claims strictly to protect the remedial purpose of the Amendment. [Paras 116, 127, 128, 129]Oral or unregistered family partitions will be recognised only in exceptional circumstances with stringent, contemporaneous documentary proof; otherwise such pleas must be rejected to protect daughters' statutory rights.Final Conclusion: The substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confers on daughters the status of coparcener by birth and enables them to claim equal rights and liabilities with effect from 9.9.2005 irrespective of the date of their birth and irrespective of whether the father/coparcener was alive on that date. Dispositions, alienations and partitions effected before 20.12.2004 are saved. The statutory notional partition in the pre-2005 proviso merely served to ascertain a deceased coparcener's share and did not effect actual disruption of the coparcenary. Courts must recognise the Amendment's effect in pending partition proceedings at the time of final decree, and post-Amendment pleas of oral or unregistered partitions will be admissible only in exceptional cases supported by compelling contemporaneous public documentation; otherwise they must be rejected to give full effect to the remedial object of the Amendment. 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.