4 Facts You Should Know About Daughter’s Rights in Parental Property

A three judge bench of Supreme Court, comprising Justices Arun Mishra, S Abdul Nazeer and MR Shah passed the verdict in appeals raising the issue of whether the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 granting rights to the daughters to inherit ancestral property would have retrospective effect. Let’s go over a few things you need to understand about the Supreme Court’s latest verdict:

1. The Amendment of 2005

The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, was enacted to remove gender discriminatory provisions in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Under the amendment, by substitution of Section 6, the daughter of the coparcener by birth became a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son. The daughter shall also have the same rights in the coparcenary property as a son. But the Act clarified that nothing contained in the section would apply to the partitions effected before 20thDecember 2004.

2. The Present Case

The issue raised before the Supreme Court was whether with the passing of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, whether a daughter could be denied her share on the ground that she was born prior to the enactment of the Act, and therefore cannot be treated as coparcener?

High Court of Delhi highlighted that there had been a difference of opinion between the benches of the Supreme Court. Hence it granted a certificate of fitness to appeal the case before the Supreme Court.

3. Conflicting Views – Previous Rulings

In Danamma v. Amar, the Supreme Court had held that the 2005 amendment conferred upon the daughter the status of a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son. Thus, it confers equal rights and liabilities in the coparcener properties to the daughters and sons.

In Prakash v. Phulwati, the Supreme Court had held that “rights under the amendment are applicable to living daughters of living coparceners as on 9th September 2005 irrespective of when such daughter is born.” In other words, if the coparcener had passed away prior to 9th September 2005 (date of amendment coming into effect), the living daughter of the coparcener would have no right to coparcenary property.

4. The Present Verdict

The Supreme Court ruled that daughters will have equal right in the parental property as sons even if their father died before the Hindu Succession (amendment) Act 2005 came into force. Further, the Bench held, rights under the amendment are applicable to living daughters of living coparceners as on 9th September 2005, irrespective of when such daughters are born.

While addressing the issue, the Bench said, “Daughters cannot be deprived of their right to equality conferred by Section 6 of the Act.”

While pronouncing the landmark judgement, Justice Arun Mishra also remarked, “Once a daughter, always a daughter. A son is a son till he is married. The daughter shall remain a coparcener throughout life, irrespective of whether her father is alive or not”.

---

Featured Image Credits: Indian Express

Also read: 5 Important Judgements related to Contempt of Court by Yagyansh Nassa