Case Summary: Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma AIR 2020 SC 3717

Case Title: Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma AIR 2020 SC 3717

Citation: AIR 2020 SC 3717

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Justice M.R. Shah , Justice Abdul Nazeer , Justice Arun Mishra

Date of Judgement: 11 August , 2020 

Relevant Statutes / Key Provisions:

• Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act , 1956
• Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act , 1956
• Section 27 of the Hindu Succession Act , 1956
• Article 14 of the Constitution of India 
• Article 142 of the Constitution of India
• Prakash v Phulwati AIR 2016 SUPREME COURT 769
• Danamma v. Suman AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 721

Facts

In this case the plaintiff / appellant Vineeta Sharma filed a suit against her family members including her brother Rakesh Sharma , the respondent to inherit her fathers property . She argued that since her father , Mr. Dev Datta Sharma died without forming a will, she is equally entitled to his property . According to Vineeta Sharma, the property was not included in HUF, which is Hindu Undivided Family , so she is entitled to ¼ th of the property. ( when a property is within HUF , it is divided between the coparceners who are individuals having legal right to share it ) 

This case was filed in Delhi High Court  and it ruled that since the plaintiff ‘s father died on 11 December , 1999 prior to the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act , 2005  , thus it is not applicable on the plaintiff . On not being satisfied with this decision , an appeal was filed by the plaintiff in the supreme court .

Issues Involved

• Whether the daughter can also be a coparcener according to the 2005 amendment after the death of her father ?
• Whether it is necessary for both the father and daughter to be alive during the commencement of the amendment act for the provisions to be applicable ? 
• Whether the nature of this act is retrospective , prospective or retroactive ?

Arguments 

Appellant ( Vineeta Sharma , the petitioner )

1. They argued that the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act , 2005 clearly states that a daughter shall be a coparcener ‘ by birth’ just like a son . So , they are provided equal rights by birth . 
2. The appellant argued that the section on which this law shall be applicable should not depend on the date of the demise of the father . 
3. The application of the amendment act is retroactive as it talks about the benefits from a past event (birth) even though it was enacted in 2005 .
4. Moreover , Article 14 of the Indian Constitution talks about the right to equality . So , denial of the right to inherit the property just because the father died before 2005 violates the right to equality .

Respondent ( Rakesh Sharma )

1. The Prakash vs. Phulavati case of 2016 was cited . In this case an appeal was made to the Supreme Court where it was held that as the father was not alive on the commencement of the amendment act , therefore, Phulavati , the daughter was not entitled to share in the property .
2. In reference to this case , the appellant’s father was also not alive on or after the commencement of the amendment act so she is not entitled to the share in the property .
3. Daughter of a coparcener means daughter of a person who is alive and shares his property .
4. The respondent argued that the amendment was prospective in nature and does not make a change in the partition of property made before 2005 .
5. Arguments were made on the marital status of the daughter . It was stated that daughters who have been married cannot be recognised as a member of their father’s joint family and for the fact that they used to be treated as class I heirs did not make them a member of their father’s joint family .
6. Moreover, if the court allows daughters to claim rights in property which is already partitioned before 2005 would create uncertainty and disturb settled matters .

Union of India (Shri Tushar Mehta , Solicitor General of India represented the Union of India in this case)  

1. He argued that the right of a coparcener has been provided to the daughters to bring equality with sons. If daughters are excluded from coparcenary then it would be discriminatory and lead to oppression and negation of fundamental rights .     
2. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act , 2005 is neither retrospective nor prospective . It is retroactive in operation since it enables the daughters to exercise their coparcenary rights on the commencement of the Amendment Act .
3. The old Mitakshara coparcenary system was unfair . It represented that if a male with a right to ancestral property died and had female relatives like daughter or male relatives who were related through a woman , the daughter only got a limited share in his property . It treated women as less important than men and denied them equal rights to ancestral property. That’s why it was seen as discriminatory and against the right to equality, which is protected by the Constitution of India.     
4. Before the 2005 amendment , the property was divided on the basis of survivorship . But after the amendment , it would be done either by intestate succession or testamentary succession . 
5. The coparcener / father needs not to be alive as on the commencement of the Amendment Act of 2005 . 

Amicus Curiae (Adv. R. Venkataramni)

1. Adv. R. Venkataramni , learned senior counsel, argued that there is no conflict between Prakash v. Phulavati and Danamma v. Suman case . In both the decisions , the provision of section 6 of the amendment has been held to be prospective . 
2. He argued that applying this act for the partitions done before this amendment act would bring in enormous uncertainty in the working of the law . 
3. He stated the daughter whose coparcener father was alive on the date of incorporation of provisions of Section 6 will be treated as a coparcener . Any other interpretation would cause unjust consequences. 
4. Adv. V.V.S Rao learned senior counsel argued that the decision by the SC in Prakash v. Phulavati (2016) was upheld in the decision of Mangammal Thulasi and Anr. v. T.B. Raju and Ors. (2018) . It stated that there should be a living daughter of a living coparcener to receive property on the date of commencement of the amended provisions .
5. He stated that this amendment gave the right to inherit ancestral property or to be a coparcener to the daughters by birth . So , it should not matter whether she is born before or after the commencement of the amendment act . 

Judgment

The Supreme Court of India cited various cases like  Lokmani & Ors. v. Mahadevamma & Ors., [S.L.P.(C) No.6840 of 2016] ,  Balchandra v. Smt. Poonam & Ors. [SLP [C] No.35994/2015] , Sistia Sarada Devi v. Uppaluri Hari Narayana & Ors. [SLP [C] No.38542/2016] , Girijavva v. Kumar Hanmantagouda & Ors. [SLP [C] No.6403/2019]  , Smt. V.L. Jayalakshmi v. V.L. Balakrishna & Ors. [SLP [C] No. 14353/2019] , Indubai v. Yadavrao [SLP [C] No.24901/2019] , Prakash v. Phulavati AIR 2016 SUPREME COURT 769 and Danamma v. Suman AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 721 case .

The Supreme Court held that a daughter shall have equal coparcenary rights , irrespective of whether the father was alive on 9 September , 2005 (Date of commencement of the act) or not . The Hindu Succession ( Amendment ) Act confers status of a coparcener by birth to daughters , just like a son . The date of father’s death whether before 2005 or after 2005 must not affect the daughter’s rights . However , the SC clarified that if a partition was completed before 20th December 2004 , it would not be reopened .

Ratio Decidendi

• SC held that the daughter will be treated as a coparcener in the same manner as a son by birth with the same rights in coparcenary property and liabilities .
• Disposition or alienation including partitions which may have taken place before 20 December 2004 as per law applicable prior to the said date will remain unaffected . 
• This amendment act will be prospective in nature and will not affect  the partitions done before 20-12-2004 when the bill was tabled before Rajya Sabha .
• SC overruled earlier decisions given in Prakash v. Phulavati case and held that the right of coparcenary will be provided to every daughter irrespective of  the fact of birth before or after the commencement of the act . 
• The date of death of the father would also not affect the right of coparcenary of the daughters .

Obiter Dicta

• The court clarified the intention of the amendment . It emphasized gender equality as a principle underlying the amendment . 
• It held that Hindu Coparcenary had a narrow scope and consisted of propitus and three male lineal descendents . This Amendment act allows females to get the same coparcenary rights as males and will have a broader scope .

Final Decision

Daughters gained equal coparcenary rights in Hindu ancestral property by brith , regardless of their fathers’ survival on the 2005 amendment date . The court held that this amendment act is retrospective . This grants daughters full , inherited rights , equal to sons and will promote gender equality . 

Appellant ( Vineeta Sharma ) won the case and acquired 1/4th share in the property of her father , Mr. Dev Datta Sharma.