The Supreme Court has given an important decision regarding the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005. The court said that even if the father’s death occurred before 9 November 2005, the daughters are entitled to equal rights in the ancestral property. The Hindu Succession Act came into force in 1956 and was changed in 2005. Changing its section 6, the daughters were also made partners in the ancestral property.
Questions were being raised on the amended law that if the father died before 2005, would the daughter still have rights in the ancestral property? On this, two benches of two judges of the Supreme Court had given different decisions. There was confusion due to this. In this case, the decision of the bench of three judges headed by Justice Arun Mishra on Tuesday will now apply to all.
Know what was the case in 10 points and what the Supreme Court ruled?
1 The Supreme Court had given different judgments in Prakash v. Phulwati (2016) and Danamma v. Amar (2018) case. In the 2016 judgment, Justice Anil R. The Bench of Dave and Justice AK Goel had said that only the surviving daughters of the surviving Koparsner (partner) would get the rights on 9 September 2005. At the same time, in the 2018 case, a bench of Justice AK Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan said that even if the father died in 2001, both daughters would get a share in the ancestral property.
2 Justice Pratibha M. Singh of the Delhi High Court referred both the decisions of the Supreme Court on 15 May 2018 in the Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma case and put forth this contradictory position. Taking the Prakash vs Phulwati case as true, the appeal was canceled but the Supreme Court granted permission / certificate to appeal so that the legal status could be clarified.
3 On this basis, the matter came to the Supreme Court. Both earlier decisions were pronounced by the two-judge bench. For this reason, this time a bench of three judges was formed so that the answer to the question can be ascertained that if the father is killed before the new law is implemented in September-2005, whether the daughters will get rights in the property or not? Justice Arun Mishra, Justice S. Abdul Nazir and Justice MR Shah gave their verdict on this on Tuesday.
Also Read: CBI conducts searches over illegal use of land to raise Ambience Mall in Gurugram
4 Actually, it was necessary to know the intention of the government to clear the matter. For this reason, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also appeared on behalf of the Central Government. He said in the case that in order to give equal rights to sons, they have been made coparsons. If they do not get the right, it will be like taking away their fundamental right from them.
5 The central government also told the court that the amendment of the law in 2005 is not retroactive but is retroactive in operations. That is, its provisions will remain in effect before the amended law comes into force. Koparsner’s right is earned by the daughter at birth, but Koparsnari is her birthright.
6 It also clarified that the amended bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on 20 December 2004. This means that any splitting of ancestral property before that will not affect the amended law. The Supreme Court has also accepted these arguments.
7 The Center argued that the amended law came into force on 9 September 2005, and with this, the daughters also became koparsner from birth. The rights and responsibilities of the coparcener property belong to the sons, they will also remain with the daughters.
8 In this connection, it is necessary to state that the Hindu Succession Act came into force in India in 1956. Before that everything was fixed with Mitakshara. This is a commentary by Vigyaneshwar on Yajnavalkya Smriti, which was composed in the 11th century. This book is famous for the principle of ‘birth birth succession’. According to Mitakshara, each person gets a share in the property of the father’s joint family from birth. Since 2005, daughters have also come under its purview.
9 While giving his verdict on Tuesday, Justice Mishra said – daughters are as loving to parents as sons. In such a situation, they should also get equal rights in ancestral property. Daughters are lovely all their life. Daughters should also be coparents all their lives. Regardless of whether the father is alive or not.
10 The Koparsner is the person who from birth becomes a shareholder in the joint family property. The basic difference between a coparcener and a member in a Hindu undivided family (HUF) is that the coparcener may press for a share in the ancestral property but not the member. Before the amended law came into force in 2005, daughters were members of families, not coparceners. It is also clear that the wife or daughter-in-law may be a member of the family but not the coparcener.
