(Contributor-AKANKSHA SINGH) 

The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, marked a significant reform in the codified personal laws of Hindus in India. However, the law retained several patriarchal remnants, particularly concerning the inheritance of ancestral property. Traditionally, under the Mitakshara school of Hindu law, only male members of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) were recognized as coparceners—those with a birthright in the joint family property. Daughters, though members of the family, were not entitled to such rights. This gender-based discrimination stood in stark contrast to the constitutional guarantee of equality under Article 14.

The 2005 Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act was a historic step in addressing this inequality by conferring equal coparcenary rights on daughters. However, the road to this legal recognition has not been smooth. This article explores the legal evolution, judicial interpretation, and contemporary implications of the daughter’s right in coparcenary property.

Pre-Amendment Scenario

Prior to the amendment, Section 6 provided that upon the death of a male coparcener, his interest in the coparcenary property would devolve by survivorship to other coparceners, typically male heirs. Female members, including daughters, had limited rights, usually restricted to maintenance and marriage expenses.

The 2005 Amendment: Equal Status to Daughters

The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 brought sweeping changes to Section 6. The key provisions of the amended section are:

1. Equal Birthright: A daughter of a coparcener shall, by birth, become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as a son.
2. Same Rights and Liabilities: She shall have the same rights and be subject to the same liabilities as a son in the coparcenary property.
3. Testamentary Disposition: The property that devolves upon a daughter under Section 6 is capable of being disposed of by her through a will.
4. Abolition of Pious Obligation: The concept of sons bearing liability for their ancestors’ debts was abolished.
5. Validity of Past Transactions: Transactions, partitions, or wills made prior to 20th December 2004 were not disturbed.

This amendment aimed not just to reform inheritance laws but to usher in a new era of gender justice within Hindu personal law.

Despite the clarity of intent, the implementation of the amendment saw divergent interpretations by various High Courts and even the Supreme Court. The main controversy revolved around whether the 2005 amendment was retrospective or prospective in nature?

In the case of Prakash v.  Phulavati, the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment was prospective, meaning it would only apply if both the father and the daughter were alive on 9th September 2005. If the father had died before this date, the daughter could not claim coparcenary rights. The court justified this by asserting that succession opens on the date of the ancestor’s death, and legal rights cannot be retroactively modified. This judgment caused much confusion and was widely criticized for limiting the scope of a social justice legislation based on a technicality.

Then in 2018 in case of Danamma v. Amar, the father had died in 2001, yet the Supreme Court granted coparcenary rights to his daughters. The Court distinguished the case on the ground that the partition proceedings were pending, and the final decree was passed after the amendment came into force. Hence, the daughters were allowed to claim their share. This ruling contradicted Phulavati Case, as it recognized daughter’s rights despite the father’s death prior to 2005. This created judicial inconsistency, especially in cases involving pending partition suits.

Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020): The Final Word

To resolve the conflict between Phulavati and Danamma, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma by Order VI Rule 2 of Supreme Court Rules, 2013 which states:

“Where in the course of hearing of any cause, appeal or other proceeding, the Bench considers that the matter should be dealt with by a larger Bench, it shall refer the matter to the Chief Justice, who shall thereupon constitute such a Bench for hearing of it”

The Supreme Court while laying down the principles in the case said that -“Besides the various sources, custom, equity, justice, and conscience have also played a pivotal role in the development of Hindu law, which prevailed. When the law was silent on certain aspects, Judicial decisions also acted as a source of law. Hindu law was not static but always progressive.”

1. Coparcenary Right by Birth: The Court affirmed that a daughter becomes a coparcener by birth, regardless of whether her father was alive on 9th September 2005.
2. Retrospective Application: The Court declared that the 2005 amendment has retrospective application in the sense that it applies to daughters born before and after the amendment.
3. Partition Must Be Legally Complete: Only partitions that were legally valid through registered documents or court decrees before 20th December 2004 would be considered valid to deny a daughter’s claim.
4. Oral Partitions Invalid: Oral partitions, unless supported by public records or strong evidence, cannot be used to defeat a daughter’s rights.
5. Unobstructed Heritage: The Court distinguished between unobstructed heritage i.e. right acquired by birth and obstructed heritage i.e. right acquired upon the death of a relative, confirming that daughters have unobstructed rights in coparcenary property.

This judgment finally settled the legal uncertainty and cemented the daughter’s right to ancestral property on an equal footing with sons.

Arunachala Gounder v. Ponnusamy (2022): Self-Acquired Property

While Vineeta Sharma dealt with ancestral/coparcenary property, another significant development occurred in Arunachala Gounder v. Ponnusamy & Ors. (2022), which dealt with the inheritance of self-acquired property.

In this case deceased Hindu male had died intestate before 1956, owning self-acquired property. The legal question was whether his daughter could inherit the property or whether it would devolve on male relatives?

Supreme Court ruled that a daughter is entitled to inherit the self-acquired property of her father who died intestate, even before 1956. The property devolves by inheritance, not by survivorship and if the daughter later dies without heirs, the property returns to the father’s legal heirs, not to her husband’s family. This judgment expanded the scope of a daughter’s inheritance rights beyond coparcenary property to self-acquired assets as well.

Constitutional Perspective

The 2005 amendment and the judicial decisions supporting equal inheritance rights are rooted in constitutional morality. Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination) form the backbone of these reforms. The courts have emphasized that personal laws must evolve in light of the changing social norms and constitutional principles. By applying Section 6 retrospectively, the Court sought to eliminate the vestiges of gender bias in Hindu inheritance law.

Conclusion

The recognition of daughters as equal coparceners under Hindu law marks a progressive shift toward gender equality in the personal laws of India. The 2005 amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, along with clarificatory judgments such as Vineeta Sharma and Arunachala Gounder, have ensured that daughters are no longer relegated to the margins in matters of inheritance.

While the law now supports equality, the journey towards actual parity is ongoing. Legal rights must translate into social realities. For this, a collective effort from lawmakers, the judiciary, civil society, and families themselves is necessary.

The words of the Supreme Court resonate deeply: “A son is a son till he gets a wife, but a daughter is a daughter throughout her life.” It is time this sentiment is reflected not only in legal texts but also in every household across the country. When the constitution promises equality, inheritance cannot remain unequal and a daughter carries the family name, nurtures the legacy- then why was she denied right to inherit it?