Blog

Introduction

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has affirmed that daughters have equal rights as sons in ancestral property under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. This landmark decision in the case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Ors. is a major step towards gender equality in India, as it grants daughters the same status and rights as sons in the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property.

Background:
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, governed the inheritance and succession of property in Hindu families. However, the Act initially did not grant equal rights to daughters in the ancestral property. The 2005 Amendment aimed to remove this gender-based discrimination by giving daughters equal rights as coparceners in the HUF property.

Key Points of the Judgment:

1. Coparcenary Rights by Birth: The Supreme Court held that under the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, the daughter of a coparcener becomes a coparcener by birth, just like a son. This means that daughters have the same rights and liabilities as sons in the HUF property.

2. Retrospective Effect: The rights conferred upon daughters under the amended law can be claimed with effect from September 9, 2005, irrespective of whether the daughter was born before or after the amendment. However, the amendment does not invalidate any disposition, alienation, partition, or testamentary disposition of the property made before December 20, 2004.

3. Father's Lifetime Not Necessary: The Court clarified that for a daughter to claim her coparcenary rights, it is not necessary for her father (the coparcener) to be alive as on September 9, 2005. Since the right is by birth, the daughter can claim her share in the HUF property even if her father had passed away before the amendment came into force.

4. Preliminary Decree Not a Barrier: Even if a preliminary decree for partition has been passed, daughters are to be given an equal share in the coparcenary property as sons. The Court emphasized that the provisions of the amended Section 6 must be given full effect, and daughters cannot be deprived of their rights.

5. Partition and Oral Evidence: The Court stressed that a plea of oral partition cannot be accepted as a statutory recognized mode of partition. Partition must be effected either by a registered deed or by a decree of the court. However, in exceptional cases where an oral partition is supported by strong public documents and is finally evinced in the same manner as a court decree, it may be accepted. A plea of partition based solely on oral evidence is to be outrightly rejected.

Implications for Social Status of Daughters:

This judgment is a significant milestone in the journey towards achieving gender equality in India. By granting daughters equal rights in ancestral property, the Supreme Court has sent a strong message that daughters should be treated on par with sons in all aspects of life, including inheritance and succession.

The decision challenges the age-old patriarchal mindset that favored sons over daughters in matters of property inheritance. It recognizes that daughters have an equal right to inherit and benefit from the family's ancestral property, irrespective of their marital status or birth order.

This judgment not only provides financial security and empowerment to daughters but also elevates their social status within the family and society at large. It reinforces the idea that daughters are not inferior to sons and should be given the same opportunities, rights, and respect.

Moreover, the judgment emphasizes the importance of fair and equitable distribution of property among all children, regardless of their gender. It promotes the values of inclusivity and equality within the family structure, where daughters are treated as equal stakeholders in the family's prosperity and well-being.

The Supreme Court's decision also sets a precedent for lower courts to follow in similar cases, ensuring that the rights of daughters are protected and upheld consistently across the country. It provides a legal framework for daughters to assert their rights and claim their rightful share in the ancestral property without facing discrimination or obstacles.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court's judgment in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Ors. is a landmark decision that upholds the equal rights of daughters in Hindu Undivided Family property. By granting daughters the same status and rights as sons, the Court has taken a significant step towards achieving gender equality in India.

This judgment not only provides financial empowerment to daughters but also elevates their social status and challenges the patriarchal mindset that has long favored sons over daughters. It promotes the values of fairness, equality, and inclusivity within the family structure and ensures that daughters are treated as equal stakeholders in the family's prosperity.

As the judgment is implemented and its implications are felt across the country, it is expected to bring about a transformative change in the way daughters are perceived and treated within Hindu families. It will contribute to the ongoing efforts to create a more egalitarian society where every individual, regardless of their gender, has equal rights and opportunities.

The Supreme Court's decision is a welcome step towards gender justice and serves as a reminder that the fight for equality is an ongoing process. It is crucial for society to embrace this change and work towards creating a more inclusive and equitable environment for all.

Frequently Asked Questions on Supreme Court's judgment in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Ors.:

1. What is the main issue addressed in the Supreme Court's judgment?

The main issue addressed in the judgment is whether daughters have equal rights as sons in ancestral property under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.

2. What does the judgment say about the rights of daughters in Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property?

The judgment states that daughters have the same rights and liabilities as sons in the HUF property and are entitled to an equal share as coparceners.

3. Does the judgment have a retrospective effect?

Yes, the judgment has a retrospective effect. The rights conferred upon daughters under the amended law can be claimed with effect from September 9, 2005, irrespective of whether the daughter was born before or after the amendment.

4. Is it necessary for the father (coparcener) to be alive for a daughter to claim her coparcenary rights?

No, it is not necessary for the father to be alive as on September 9, 2005, for a daughter to claim her coparcenary rights. Since the right is by birth, the daughter can claim her share even if her father had passed away before the amendment came into force.

5. What happens if a preliminary decree for partition has already been passed?

Even if a preliminary decree for partition has been passed, daughters are to be given an equal share in the coparcenary property as sons. The provisions of the amended Section 6 must be given full effect.

6. Can a plea of oral partition be accepted as a valid mode of partition?

No, a plea of oral partition cannot be accepted as a statutory recognized mode of partition. Partition must be effected either by a registered deed or by a decree of the court. Only in exceptional cases where an oral partition is supported by strong public documents and is finally evinced like a court decree, it may be accepted.

7. What are the implications of this judgment for the social status of daughters?

The judgment elevates the social status of daughters by granting them equal rights in ancestral property and challenging the patriarchal mindset that favored sons over daughters. It promotes fairness, equality, and inclusivity within the family structure.

8. Does the judgment apply to all Hindu families across India?

Yes, the judgment applies to all Hindu families governed by the Mitakshara coparcenary law across India.

9. Can daughters claim their share in the ancestral property even if the property has been divided before the amendment?

Daughters can claim their share in the ancestral property as per the amended law, but the amendment does not invalidate any disposition, alienation, partition, or testamentary disposition of the property made before December 20, 2004.

10. What is the time frame given by the Supreme Court for the implementation of this judgment?

The Supreme Court has requested that the pending matters related to this issue be decided, as far as possible, within six months to ensure that daughters are not deprived of their rights.