Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020)

Court: Supreme Court of India

Citation: (2020) 9 SCC 1

Judges: Hon’ble Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Hon’ble Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Hon’ble Justice Sanjiv Khanna

Introduction

The case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) is a landmark ruling delivered by the Supreme Court of India concerning the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the rights of daughters in Hindu Mitakshara coparcenary property. This case played a pivotal role in establishing a crucial legal principle regarding the rights of daughters in ancestral property under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, particularly in relation to the amendment of 2005. It clarified the interpretation of the amendment, significantly impacting the inheritance rights of daughters in joint Hindu families.

The case is significant because it marked a reinterpretation of legal provisions in light of social transformation and evolving norms regarding gender equality and women’s rights in property matters. It dealt with a situation where the right of a daughter to claim a share in ancestral property was contested on the grounds of the date of birth, pre- or post-amendment of the Hindu Succession Act.

Facts of the Case

The dispute in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma revolved around the interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which governs the rights of heirs in coparcenary property. Prior to the 2005 amendment, only sons were recognized as coparceners in a joint Hindu family, and daughters were not entitled to a share in the coparcenary property by birth. However, the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, made significant changes, granting daughters the same rights and liabilities in coparcenary property as sons.

The case arose when Vineeta Sharma, the appellant, filed a suit seeking her share in the ancestral property of her father. Vineeta’s claim was based on the fact that she was born after the 2005 amendment and thus entitled to a share in the ancestral property. However, the respondent Rakesh Sharma, who was her brother, argued that the rights of daughters under the 2005 amendment were applicable only to those daughters who were born after the enactment of the amendment. He contended that since the family partition had already taken place before the amendment, Vineeta had no right to claim a share.

In essence, the case hinged on whether the provisions of the 2005 amendment granting equal rights to daughters were applicable to daughters who were born before the amendment and whether daughters were entitled to equal shares in the ancestral property after the amendment, irrespective of whether the father had passed away before or after the amendment was enacted.

Legal Reasonings and Acts Referenced

1. Hindu Succession Act, 1956

The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 governs the inheritance rights of Hindus. Section 6 of the Act is particularly crucial, as it deals with the devolution of property in a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), specifically coparcenary property. Before the amendment, only sons were recognized as coparceners. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 sought to give daughters equal rights in the coparcenary property by providing that daughters would have the same rights as sons.

• Section 6 (before amendment, 1956): This provision provided that only a son, grandson, or great-grandson could be a coparcener in a Hindu joint family, and thus only these male members had a share in coparcenary property.
• Section 6 (after amendment, 2005): The amendment provided that daughters, by birth, would have the same rights as sons in coparcenary property. The new provision clarified that daughters would have an equal right to the property, and this right was not dependent on the father being alive at the time of the amendment.

2. Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005

The 2005 Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act was a revolutionary change in terms of gender equality. It provided that:

• Daughters would have the same rights as sons in the ancestral property.
• The right of daughters to claim a share was not dependent on the father’s status (whether the father was alive or had passed away before the amendment).
• The amendment specifically sought to include daughters as coparceners in the Hindu joint family property, entitling them to inherit and partition coparcenary property on an equal basis as sons.

The key issue was the retrospective applicability of this amendment—whether it applied to daughters born before 2005, or whether it only applied to those born after the amendment came into force.

3. Judicial Precedents and Interpretations

The court referred to several previous judgments that interpreted the scope of Section 6 before and after the amendment:

• In Prakash v. Phulavati (2016), the Supreme Court held that daughters could claim a share in the coparcenary property only if the father was alive at the time the amendment came into force. This ruling had created confusion about the applicability of the 2005 amendment and its impact on daughters born before the amendment.

The Court had to resolve the conflict in interpreting these judgments and clarify whether the daughters’ rights under the amendment were absolute, or whether it was limited to those born after the amendment.

Arguments of the Parties

Arguments of the Petitioner (Vineeta Sharma)

1. Equality and Gender Justice: The petitioner, Vineeta Sharma, argued that the amendment was intended to bring equality in the inheritance laws. She contended that the amendment was retrospective in nature, meaning that daughters born before the amendment would also have the same rights to the coparcenary property as sons.
2. Interpretation of the 2005 Amendment: Vineeta’s counsel argued that the amendment granted daughters an equal share in the ancestral property from the moment of birth, and it did not matter whether the father had passed away before or after the amendment was enacted. The petitioner emphasized that the intent of the legislature was to provide equal rights to daughters, and therefore, daughters born before the amendment should also be entitled to inherit property.
3. Constitutional Mandate of Equality: Vineeta’s legal team also relied on Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 15 (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex) of the Indian Constitution. They argued that interpreting the law in a way that denies daughters born before 2005 their share would be discriminatory and contrary to the constitutional principles of equality and gender justice.

Arguments of the Respondent (Rakesh Sharma)

1. Pre-Amendment Birth: The respondent, Rakesh Sharma, argued that the rights conferred by the 2005 amendment applied only to daughters born after the amendment. Rakesh’s counsel contended that the rights of daughters in coparcenary property could not be given retrospectively, as it would lead to a situation where daughters born before the amendment would have claims on property that was already partitioned or distributed.
2. Precedent Interpretation: Rakesh’s team relied on the interpretation provided in Prakash v. Phulavati (2016), where the Court held that the 2005 amendment did not apply retrospectively to daughters born before the amendment, especially in cases where the father had passed away prior to 2005.
3. Partition of Property: Rakesh argued that the family property had been partitioned before the amendment, and therefore, Vineeta could not claim a share in the property. He emphasized that the amendment did not alter pre-existing partitions and that inheritance rights should be determined according to the law in force at the time of the partition.

Judgment

The Supreme Court, in a significant and widely discussed decision, ruled in favor of Vineeta Sharma, asserting that the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act was retroactive in nature. The Court clarified that the rights of daughters under the amendment applied irrespective of whether the father had passed away before or after the amendment. The judgment overruled the earlier interpretation in Prakash v. Phulavati (2016) that had restricted the application of the amendment to daughters born after 2005.

The Court observed that:

1. Interpretation of Section 6: The Court held that Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, as amended in 2005, provided that daughters, by birth, have equal rights in ancestral property. The right to claim a share was not contingent on the father’s death occurring before or after the amendment came into force. The judgment clarified that the daughter’s rights in ancestral property were equal to that of the son, regardless of the father’s status.
2. Constitutional Rights: The Court emphasized the importance of gender equality and equal inheritance rights in accordance with the principles laid down in the Indian Constitution. It stated that interpreting the amendment to limit its applicability would be discriminatory and contrary to the spirit of constitutional mandates like Article 14 and Article 15.
3. Impact on Pre-Amendment Situations: The Court also held that even in cases where the father had passed away prior to 2005, daughters born before the amendment were still entitled to their share of the coparcenary property. This ruling ensured that the amendment applied retrospectively, and daughters had the right to challenge partitions made before the amendment if they had not been provided an equal share.
4. Overruling Precedents: The Court explicitly overruled the decision in Prakash v. Phulavati (2016), stating that it had been incorrectly interpreted. The Court held that daughters had equal rights from the moment of birth, and this right could not be extinguished merely because the father had passed away before the amendment.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) is a milestone in the recognition of women’s rights in inheritance law in India. It affirmed that daughters are equal coparceners in Hindu joint family property, irrespective of when they were born or whether the father was alive when the 2005 amendment came into force. The ruling has farreaching implications for gender equality and property rights, ensuring that daughters enjoy the same rights as sons in the ancestral property of a joint Hindu family.

This judgment has enhanced the scope of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 and has clarified ambiguities surrounding its retrospective applicability, paving the way for women to claim their rightful share in ancestral property in a manner consistent with the principles of equality and justice.