Landmark Supreme Court Judgment on right of daughter in ancestral property as coparcener since her birth

 Resultantly, we answer the reference as under:

(i) The provisions contained in substituted Section 6 of the Hindu

Succession Act, 1956 confer status of coparcener on the daughter

born before or after amendment in the same manner as son with same rights and liabilities.

(ii) The rights can be claimed by the daughter born earlier with

effect from 9.9.2005 with savings as provided in Section 6(1) as to the disposition or alienation, partition or testamentary disposition which had taken place before 20th day of December, 2004.

(iii) Since the right in coparcenary is by birth, it is not necessary that father coparcener should be living as on 9.9.2005.

(iv) The statutory fiction of partition created by proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as originally enacted did not bring about the actual partition or disruption of coparcenary. The fiction was only for the purpose of ascertaining share of deceased coparcener when he was survived by a female heir, of ClassI

as specified in the Schedule to the Act of 1956 or male relative of such female. The provisions of the substituted Section 6 are required to be given full effect. Notwithstanding that a preliminary decree has been passed the daughters are to be given share in coparcenary equal to that of a son in pending proceedings for final decree or in an appeal.

(v) In view of the rigor of provisions of Explanation to Section 6(5) of the Act of 1956, a plea of oral partition cannot be accepted as the

statutory recognised mode of partition effected by a deed of partition

duly registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 or

effected by a decree of a court. However, in exceptional cases where

plea of oral partition is supported by public documents and partition

is finally evinced in the same manner as if it had been affected by a

decree of a court, it may be accepted. A plea of partition based on oral

evidence alone cannot be accepted and to be rejected outrightly.

{Para 129} 

130. We understand that on this question, suits/appeals are

pending before different High Courts and subordinate courts. The

matters have already been delayed due to legal imbroglio caused by

conflicting decisions. The daughters cannot be deprived of their right

of equality conferred upon them by Section 6. Hence, we request that

the pending matters be decided, as far as possible, within six months.

In view of the aforesaid discussion and answer, we overrule the

views to the contrary expressed in Prakash v. Phulavati and

Mangammal v. T.B. Raju & Ors. The opinion expressed in Danamma @

Suman Surpur & Anr. v. Amar is partly overruled to the extent it is

contrary to this decision.

R E P O R T A B L E

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. DIARY NO.32601 OF 2018

VINEETA SHARMA Vs  RAKESH SHARMA 

ARUN MISHRA, J,S. Abdul Nazeer J,M.R. Shah J.

Dated:August 11, 2020.
Read full Judgment here: Click here

Citation: 2020 SCC OnLine SC 641,2021(1) MHLJ648.

Print Page