Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Ors. (2020)

Introduction 

This landmark Supreme Court judgment, delivered by a three-judge bench, resolved the conflicting interpretations regarding daughter's coparcenary rights in Hindu joint family property following the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Court addressed the critical question of whether daughters born before the amendment could claim coparcenary rights and whether the father's survival on the date of amendment was necessary for such rights. The judgment established that daughters acquire coparcenary rights by birth, equal to sons, with effect from 9th September 2005, regardless of whether their father was alive on that date, subject to certain savings provisions. 

Facts of the Case

• The case arose from appeals challenging judgments passed by the High Court of Delhi and involved conflicts between two earlier two-judge bench decisions of the Supreme Court. 
• The reference was necessitated due to conflicting views in Prakash v. Phulavati (2016) and Danamma @ Suman Surpur v. Amar (2018). 
• The primary dispute centered on the interpretation of the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which came into effect on 9th September 2005. 
• The amendment substituted the original Section 6 to confer coparcenary rights on daughters in the same manner as sons. 
• The key questions involved whether daughters born before the amendment could claim coparcenary rights and whether the father's survival on the amendment date was necessary. 
• The case specifically dealt with Hindu joint family properties governed by Hindu Mitakshara law. 

Issues Involved 

• Whether daughters born before the 2005 amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act can claim coparcenary rights with effect from 9th September 2005. 
• Whether it is necessary that the father coparcener should be living as on 9th September 2005 for the daughter to claim coparcenary rights. 
• The effect of the statutory fiction of partition created by the proviso to the original Section 6 on actual partition or disruption of coparcenary. 
• Whether daughters can be given share in coparcenary equal to sons in pending proceedings for final decree or in appeals even after a preliminary decree has been passed. 
• The validity and acceptance of oral partition claims in light of the amended Section 6(5) and its Explanation. 
• How to reconcile conflicting decisions of earlier two-judge benches on the applicability of coparcenary rights to daughters. 

Court's Observations 

• The Court held that the provisions of substituted Section 6 confer status of coparcener on daughters born before or after the amendment in the same manner as sons with same rights and liabilities. 
• The Court established that daughters born earlier can claim rights with effect from 9th September 2005 with savings as provided in Section 6(1) regarding dispositions, alienations, partitions or testamentary dispositions made before 20th December 2004. 
• The Court clarified that since the right in coparcenary is by birth, it is not necessary that the father coparcener should be living as on 9th September 2005. 
• The Court recognized that the statutory fiction of partition created by the proviso to original Section 6 did not bring about actual partition or disruption of coparcenary, but was only for ascertaining the share of deceased coparcener. 
• The Court directed that daughters are to be given share in coparcenary equal to that of sons in pending proceedings for final decree or in appeals, notwithstanding that a preliminary decree has been passed. 
• The Court held that in view of the rigour of provisions of Explanation to Section 6(5), a plea of oral partition cannot be accepted as the statutory recognized mode requires a deed of partition duly registered or a decree of court. 
• The Court allowed for exceptional cases where oral partition is supported by public documents and finally evinced in the same manner as a court decree. 
• The Court emphasized that daughters cannot be deprived of their right of equality conferred upon them by Section 6. 
• The Court requested that pending matters be decided expeditiously, as far as possible within six months. 
• The Court overruled contrary views expressed in Prakash v. Phulavati (2016) and Mangammal v. T.B. Raju (2018), and partly overruled Danamma v. Amar (2018) to the extent it was contrary to this decision. 

Conclusion 

This landmark judgment provides comprehensive clarity on daughters' coparcenary rights in Hindu joint family property following the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act. The Supreme Court established that daughters acquire coparcenary rights by birth with effect from 9th September 2005, irrespective of whether their father was alive on that date, thus ensuring gender equality in inheritance rights. By clarifying that these rights apply to daughters born before the amendment and directing their inclusion in pending proceedings, the Court has strengthened the constitutional mandate of equality and removed discrimination based on gender in matters of ancestral property succession.