Daughters Have Equal Birthright to Inherit Property: Supreme Court's Verdict

 

On August 11, 2020 the Supreme Court of India pronounced a landmark verdict in the case of Vineeta Sharma V. Rakesh Sharma[1]  elucidating the issue of inheritance of property by daughters as coparceners in a Hindu Joint Family. The Supreme Court ruled that a daughter shall have the same rights and liabilities of inheritance as that of a son to the family property, irrespective of the daughter being born before or after the date of commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005(i.e. September 9, 2005). The Supreme Court further ruled that since the right in coparcenary is by birth, it is not necessary that father coparcener should be living as on 09.09.2005.

Coparceners and Hindu Joint Family:

Hindu law consists of two main schools – Mitakshara and Dayabhaga. Mitakshara has further been sub-divided into four schools. The application of schools of Mitakshara is region-wise. It applies to most parts of India except Bengal and Assam. The Dayabhaga school of Hindu law is prevalent in these two states of India. The Mitakshara doctrine of joint family property is founded upon the existence of an undivided family, as a corporate body and the possession of property by such corporate body.

A Hindu Joint Family is a larger body than a Hindu Coparcenary. A Hindu Joint Family consists of male members lineally descended from a common ancestor and includes their mothers, wives or widows and unmarried daughters. A Copernenary property means the property which consists of ancestral property and a Coparcener under the Mitakshara school of Law is a person belonging to a Hindu Joint Family who inherits a legal right to his/her ancestral property by virtue of his/her birth.  The Coparcenary consists of only those persons who have taken by birth an interest in the property of the holder and who can enforce a partition at his/her own will. A Coparcener has no definite share in the copercenary property but he/she has an undivided interest in it and such share enlarges by deaths and diminishes by births in the family. A Coparcener becomes entitled to a definite share only on partition of the property.

Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005

The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 amended and codified the law relating to intestate succession among Hindus. The object of the amendment was to remove the discrimination on the ground of gender as contained in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 thereby giving equal rights to daughters in the Hindu Mitakshara Coparcenary property as the sons have.

Prior to the 2005 amendment of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Coparccenars governed by the Mitakshara Law consists of  only propositus and three lineal descendants. It only consisted of those persons like sons, grandsons and great grandsons who are the holders of joint property. A woman could not be a Coparcener then, but could still be a member of the Hindu Joint Family.  However, the substituted Section 6 by amendment of 2005 recognised daughter as Coparceners and conferred equal inheritable rights upon daughters in a Hindu Joint Family from the date of its commencement (w.e.f. 09.09.2005). It provided that the daughter of a coparcener shall by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son and shall have the same rights and liabilities in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she would have been a  son.

The unamended Act of 1956 provided that on the death of a male Hindu, a Coparcenar’s interest in Mitakshara coparcenary shall devolve by survivorship under the surviving members of the coparcenary and not and in accordance with the mode of succession provided under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

 The amendment Act of 2005 thereby through its substituted Section 6(3) abrogated survivorship as a mode of succession as a Mitakshara coparcener with effect from 09.09.2005 and provided that on death of a Hindu coparcener inheritance shall be by intestate or testamentary succession

Apex Court’s Judgement and its relevance:

In view of the conflicting opinions enunciated by  two division benches of the Supreme Court while interpreting the applicability and scope of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended in 2005, the case of Vineeta Sharma  was referred to a three-judge bench comprising of Justices Arun Mishra, S. Abdul Nazeer and M. R. Shah for consideration

The Apex Court observed according to the Mitakshara coparcenary law a person is conferred with rights in the coparcenary by birth, similarly the daughter has been recognised and treated as a coparcener with equal rights and liabilities as that of a son. A daughter becomes coparcener in the same manner as a son. By adoption also, the status of coparcener can be conferred. Coparcenar right is by birth. Hence, it is not necessary that there should be a living coparcener or father as on the date of amendment to whom the daughter would succeed. The daughter would step into the coparcenary as that of a son by taking birth before or after the Act. However, daughter born before can claim these rights only with effect from the date of the amendment (i.e. 09.09.2005) without affecting any partition taken place before 20th September 2004.  Thus, by the aforesaid judgement, it has been clarified that daughters shall gain the status of a coparcener by virtue of her birth regardless of being born prior or post the amendment of 2005, similarly as a son would gain his right to be a coparcener by birth in a Hindu Joint Family.

Hence, the Supreme Court ruled as follows:

The provisions contained in substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confer status of coparcener on the daughter born before or after amendment in the same manner as son with the same rights and liabilities.

The rights can be claimed by the daughter born earlier with effect from September 9, 2005 with savings as provided in Section 6(1) as to the disposition or alienation, partition or testamentary disposition with had taken place before 20th day of September, 2004.

Since the right in coparcenary is by birth, it is not necessary that father coparcener should be living as on 09.09.2005. 

It is thus, apparent from the provisions of substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 that the discrimination with daughters have been done away with and they have been provided equal treatment in matter of inheritance with Mitakshara coparcenary.

 

 


[1] 2020 SCC Online SC 641

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Street Dogs and Their Care-Givers: Laws and Guidelines

Image
  The Constitution of India envisages 10 fundamental duties for all citizens of India under Article 51 A, out of which Article 51 A (g) states as follows: It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures. ..... “ and to have compassion for all living creatures ” clearly constitutes all animals including street dogs.  All animals, be it a pet or a stray, deserves  equal amount of love and care from humans. Infact, in today's times we can see a tremendous rise in love and concern which people have developed towards street dogs. Many animal lovers /activists are increasingly showing compassion for street dogs by feeding them and providing veterinary and other support as and when required. Yet there is a class or section of humans who still discriminate between pets and strays and do not demonstrate the same love and affection towards a stray as th
Read more

Safeguards for Women under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

Image
Domestic violence is a major societal concern existing in the public domain and has been a grave hindrance towards the growth of a progressive society. The term domestic violence basically refers to infliction of violence over another person living in the same household. It connotes to the abusive behaviour of a person which can be either physical, sexual, psychological, emotional or economic. Women have been subjected to domestic violence long since and still continues to be victims of such violence occurring within the family. Domestic violence has been one of the widespread crimes against women in India with instances of molestation, marital rape and dowry deaths . Yet, until a decade ago, there was no legal definition of domestic violence, leave alone adequate legal redressal for women facing violence in their homes. This being the legal position, the legislators finally framed a new legislation called the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The law in India
Read more

SUPREME COURT ON DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF ELECTRICITY DUES

Image
  India is the world’s third largest producer and third largest consumer of electricity. Electricity has been incorporated in the 7 th Schedule of the Constitution of India as a concurrent list subject which connotes that both Central and State Governments are empowered to regulate policies and laws for the electricity sector. The Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd has held ‘Electricity’ as goods. It can be transmitted, transferred, delivered, possessed but cannot be stored. A purchaser of goods is liable to pay for it at the time of purchase or consumption under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. The quantum and time of payment may be ascertained post facto either by way of an agreement or the relevant statute. The law relating to the generation, transmission, distribution and trading and use of Electricity is contained in the Electricity Act, 2003. The Act further empowers the licensee to disconnect the electricity su
Read more