Hindu Joint Family and Coparcenary: Rights of Daughters After the 2005 Amendment
Date Published
Under the Mitakshara system, a son became a coparcener by birth, and a daughter did not. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 changed that by substituting Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
What the new Section 6 says
Under Section 6(1)(a) and (b), from the commencement of the 2005 Act a daughter of a coparcener becomes a coparcener "by birth" in her own right, with the same rights and liabilities as a son.
A proviso protects dispositions, alienations, testamentary dispositions and partitions made before 20 December 2004. Section 6(3) deals with devolution on death after commencement through notional partition. Section 6(5) excludes partitions effected before 20 December 2004, and its Explanation defines "partition" as one by a registered deed or a court decree.
Before the amendment, Section 6 provided for devolution by survivorship among coparceners, with a proviso for certain female relatives in Class I of the Schedule.
Why a larger bench had to decide
The question of how the amended Section 6 applies went to the Supreme Court because two Division Bench rulings reached conflicting verdicts: Prakash v. Phulavati (2016) and Danamma v. Amar (2018). The matter was decided in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma on 11 August 2020. Arun Mishra, J. authored the judgment, with M.R. Shah and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ. It is reported as AIR 2020 SC 3717.
A caution on the source: the Indian Kanoon page I read was long, and the part with the final answers to the reference was not available to me. So this post explains the reasoning and arguments I could read, but does not state the final order or say which earlier case was overruled. Check the concluding paragraphs of the judgment before writing those points in an exam.
Also Check: Stay Order: Meaning, Types & Injunction Difference
The questions in the connected matters
· Does the amended Section 6 apply when the father-coparcener was not alive on the commencement date?
· Can daughters seek redistribution of shares where no final partition decree was passed?
· Is the amendment prospective where the father died long before 2005?
· How do pre-amendment partitions affect daughters' claims?
Arguments
· Union of India (Solicitor General): excluding daughters was discriminatory, and the amendment is "retroactive" in operation, enabling daughters to exercise coparcenary rights from commencement.
· Amicus (Venkataramani): the amendment is prospective, and status depends on being a daughter when the amendment took effect.
· Amicus (Rao): relied on the future perfect tense in Section 6(1)(b) and legislative history, and noted that the Explanation to Section 6(5) was added later by a parliamentary committee.
· Respondents' counsel: argued the amendment is prospective and married daughters fall outside it.
· Other counsel: argued for full effect, and said the "living daughter of a living coparcener" idea in Prakash reads words into the statute.
Watch Our You Tube Video: NI Act ,1881 One Shot | Negotiable Instruments Act In One Shot
The reasoning in the text read
The Court noted the historical background of coparcenary and the difference between unobstructed and obstructed heritage. It said the right arises "by birth," so the coparcener father "need not be alive on 9.9.2005" (para 44), and the coparcener and daughter "do not need to be alive as on the date of the amendment" (para 17).
The Court reasoned that because the right arises from birth, an antecedent event, the provision operates from the date of the Amendment Act and is not a retrospective statute impairing vested rights. It relied on Savita Samvedi to say that treating married and unmarried daughters differently would be discriminatory under Article 14. It noted that States such as Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Kerala had earlier given daughters equal coparcenary rights. The Bill was based on the Law Commission's 174th Report.
Common confusions
· Coparcenary is a status by birth, not a status by the father's survival.
· The 2004 date protects earlier partitions and dispositions. It does not take away the daughter's status.
· A partition for Section 6(5) means a registered deed or a court decree.
Build a strong foundation for judicial services exams with online judiciary preparation courses offering live classes, expert mentorship, comprehensive notes, and exam-focused practice to boost your confidence and readiness.
FAQs
Which Act gave daughters coparcenary rights?
The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, which substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
How does a daughter become a coparcener under Section 6(1)?
By birth, in her own right, with the same rights and liabilities as a son.
Which date protects earlier partitions?
20 December 2004.
Which case gave the larger bench decision?
Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, decided on 11 August 2020.
Which earlier rulings conflicted?
Prakash v. Phulavati (2016) and Danamma v. Amar (2018).
Must the father be alive on 9 September 2005?
According to para 44 of the judgment as read, the coparcener father need not be alive on that date.
How does Section 6(5) define partition?
As a partition effected by a registered deed or a court decree.
Does the amendment treat married and unmarried daughters differently?
The Court relied on Savita Samvedi to say such a difference would be discriminatory under Article 14.
Conclusion
The key to this topic is the phrase "by birth." Learn Section 6(1), the 20 December 2004 cut-off and the conflict between Prakash and Danamma. Then confirm the final answers from the judgment.
At Aashayein Judiciary, Nitesh Sir and the team break down Hindu law into easy Judiciary Notes and Judiciary Study Material. Join our Online Judiciary Coaching, solve PYQ and take Mock Test series for the Civil Judge Exam, PCS J Exam and APO Exam.