Vineeta Sharma Vs Rakesh Sharma & Ors. (2020)

Court: Supreme Court of India

Judges:

• Justice Arun Mishra
• Justice S. Abdul Nazeer
• Justice M.R. Shah

Date: August 11, 2020

Citation: (2020) 9 SCC 1

Facts of Case:

Parties: Vineeta Sharma- Appellant & Rakesh Sharma & Ors – Respondent

The case is around Shri Dev Dutta Sharma, a deceased coparcener who died on December 11, 1999. He left a widow, one daughter, and three boys. One of his unmarried sons deceased on July 1, 2001. Vineeta Sharma, the daughter, lodged a lawsuit demanding a quarter portion of the coparcenary property.
Her siblings and mother, on the other hand, argued that because her dad died before the 2005 change to the Hindu Succession Act, she did not have coparcenary rights. They additionally claimed that as a married lady, she was no longer part of the joint family and hence had no claim to the family property. Vineeta, on the other hand, maintained that she was entitled to Coparcenary rights are legally granted at birth. The trial court decided against her, denying her an equal part of the land. Vineeta filed an appeal to the Delhi High Court, which supported the lower court’s verdict. The court noted the 2015 Supreme Court decision in Prakash versus Phulavati, which concluded that in order for the revised provisions to apply, both the father and the daughter had to be alive when the 2005 modification took effect. Because her father died at the time, the court determined that the amendment did not benefit her.
Vineeta Sharma, who was dissatisfied with the result, filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court, requesting a reassessment of the case and a favorable decision.^[1]

Issues:

1. Whether a daughter can claim coparcenary rights as per the 2005 Amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 if the father has passed away before 09.09.2005? Prior to the 2005 Amendment, only the male members of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), primarily sons, were classified as coparceners. This meant that only boys had the right to partition and inherit family property, whereas daughters were denied these privileges. However, the 2005 Amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 changed this clause by allowing females equal coparcenary rights, giving them the same inheritance and division rights as males in family property. The primary legal dispute that arose was whether a daughter whose father died before September 9, 2005, was still entitled to coparcenary rights to family property under the amended law.
2. Whether daughters born before the 2005 Amendment can claim coparcenary rights as per the Hindu Succession Act? The second issue was whether daughters born prior to the 2005 amendment have the same coparcenary rights to ancestral property as sons. Under the former rule, only sons were recognized as coparceners, granting them a portion of the family property. The key point was whether removing daughters from these rights was discriminatory, and if the 2005 amendment might address this inequality.
3. Whether the Amendment to Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is retrospective, prospective or retroactive in nature? The key legal question was whether the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005, which provided daughters equal rights in coparcenary property, could be applied to daughters born prior to the change. The appellant, Vineeta Sharma, argues that the amendment should also apply to her, notwithstanding the fact that she was born before to 2005.^[2]

Judgement:

Justice Arun Mishra wrote the decision, which concluded that daughters born both before and after the 2005 modification would be considered coparceners of ancestral property. In overruling the Prakash v. Phulvati judgment, the court stated that a coparcener’s predecessor does not have to be living for a daughter to become a coparcener. What counts is that the daughter was born within the coparcenary, in accordance with the enhanced degrees of coparcenary. The court highlighted that the phrase “daughter of a living coparcener” is not used in the new Section 6. Instead, the girl is born with the right to coparcenary, which is retroactively established as of September 9, 2005. Section 6(1)(a) states that daughters have the identical rights and liabilities as sons in a coparcenary, and any reference to a coparcener includes the coparcener’s daughter.

The court rejected the premise that a daughter’s rights are based on her father’s existence on that date. The court also partially overturned the Danamma decision, citing a difference of view between Prakash v. Phulvati and Danamma regarding the surviving daughter of a living coparcener. Daughters were allowed equal rights in Danamma, although the issue of a live coparcener’s daughter was not directly addressed. The court ruled that Section 6 of the Amended Act has retroactive effect and is a substitution, not an amendment. It held that daughters have coparcenary rights from birth, regardless of whether the father was alive on September 9, 2005. The court further emphasized that coparcenary rights transfer from the father to the daughter, rather than from a living coparcener to a living daughter. It claimed that the joint Hindu family property is an unencumbered inheritance with a complete right to partition resulting from the daughter’s birth.
The court also found that a daughter’s coparcenary rights do not end when she dies; rather, her rights pass to her lawful heirs or nominee. It was further clarified that even if a notional split happened prior to September 9, 2005, the daughter was still entitled to her share of the coparcenary property because the hypothetical partition does not create an actual partition. The pending cases on this subject should be resolved within a three-month period. The court emphasized that a preliminary decree is not final, and that even if a preliminary decree is issued, the final order should take into account the legislative revisions. Daughters can thus continue to assert coparcenary rights even after a preliminary decree.

The court also determined that partitions must be legally recorded and carried out after December 20, 2004, or by a court decision, in order to be declared final. This was done to prevent fake partitions that sought to deny daughters their rights. It stated that oral partitions are normally not recognized as evidence, but there is an exception for oral partitions that can be demonstrated to be real. The need to prove the authenticity of an oral partition lies with the defendant.^[3]

Impact of this case:

• Gender Equality in Property Rights: The decision reinforced the notion of gender equality in the framework of inheritance. By giving daughters the same rights to ancestral as well as self-acquired property as sons, the Court encouraged fairness and equality in Hindu succession law. The judgment gave daughters equal rights to inherit and manage family wealth and property which previously were held only for sons.
• Clarification for Retroactive Applications: The verdict provided much-needed clarity regarding the retroactive applicability of the 2005 amendment. The Court’s interpretation of the amendment as applying to daughters born before 2005 provided clarity to individuals involved in similar property disputes that were pending in court or had previously been dismissed under an assumption that the amendment just applied to daughters born after 2005.
• Significant Implications for Family Property Disputes: The case has a major effect on family property disputes in India since it allowed daughters to seek a piece of the ancestral property. It is particularly crucial for families whose father died before the 2005 amendment but whose property had not yet been partitioned. Daughters can now collect their rightful portion, perhaps ending a long-standing property conflict.
• Promotion of Social Change: The decision to provide daughters equal coparcenary rights under Hindu succession laws is an important step toward India’s socioeconomic reform. Women have historically been barred from major areas of inheritance due to patriarchal understandings of Hindu law that viewed women as secondary to male heirs. This decision overturns such archaic customs and assures that women, particularly daughters, are now regarded as equal stakeholders in family property. The verdict, which upholds the idea of gender equality, is consistent with India’s greater purpose of empowering women and ensuring equal rights in all areas of life. It is an immediate response to centuries of institutional inequality, giving women the legal ability to guarantee their financial stability. This transition not only improves justice within families, but also reinforces the nation’s dedication to fostering an inclusive culture in which women have the same rights to opportunities, resources, and legal protections.
• Precedent for future Cases: The verdict establishes a significant legal precedent for future instances involving Hindu succession and property rules. By recognizing that daughters have equal coparcenary rights, the ruling underscores that gender cannot be used to restrict inheritance rights. It challenges old legal interpretations that have barred women from equitable involvement in family property. This significant decision improves the legal framework, allowing future generations of women to boldly claim their rights in succession disputes. It also encourages consistency in the application of inheritance rules, indicating a clear shift toward equal rights that can lead the judiciary in comparable future instances.

References

^[1] Kapoor V, ‘Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma (2020)’ (iPleaders, 11 September 2024) <https://blog.ipleaders.in/vineeta-sharma-vs-rakesh-sharma-2020/> accessed 23 November 2024

^[2] ‘Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Ors.’ (The Amikus Qriae, 30 June 2023) <https://theamikusqriae.com/vineeta-sharma-v-rakesh-sharma-ors/> accessed 24 November 2024

^[3] Singh T (Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma – Prayagraj Law Review) <https://plreview.net/index.php/plr/article/download/33/3/163> accessed 25 November 2024