ABSTRACT:
The 2005 amendment gave both sons and daughters of coparcener’s equal legal standing. Coparcenary rights were solely extended to male descendants (i.e., sons) of coparceners prior to the 2005 amendment. While the 2005 amendment aimed to give sons and daughters equal rights, the wording left a number of gaps, causing the Supreme Court to deliver contradictory opinions on the subject. The Hindu Succession Act of 1956 was the first to codify Hindu law on property succession. It dealt with the interest devolution of a Hindu dying intestate’s ancestral and self-acquired property. The aforementioned Act, on the other hand, was discriminatory on the basis of gender inequality and the violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution’s fundamental right to equality. It only granted coparcenary rights to the family’s lineal male descendants, and it did not grant such rights to women. The reason for this exclusion was that the woman would eventually marry and join her husband’s family. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, needed to be amended because of the discriminatory attitude toward women’s gender and the suppression of their fundamental rights. As a result, Section 6 of the abovementioned Act was altered, and the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 was born. This modification made it possible for women to become coparceners in the same way as males could. The Supreme Court of India’s decision in the case of Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma represents a step toward gender equality and gender justice. The evolution of women’s coparcenary rights under Hindu law, on the other hand, took a lengthy period.
The Hindu Succession Act of 1956 was the first of its kind to deal with the Hindu law of succession of ancestral possessions. It formalised Hindu law, stating that ancestral property can only be gained by male lineal descendants of a common ancestor in a joint Hindu family. The Act was based on the belief that because a woman will eventually marry and become a member of another family, she should not be legally labelled a coparcener. Despite having “absolute ownership” of their own property, the women were unable to assert coparcenary rights over the family estate. As a result, the Act was blatantly discriminatory against women on the basis of their gender, and it violated their fundamental right to equality guaranteed by Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
In order to abolish the Mitakshara Coparcenary’s discrimination against women, Indian legislators realised they needed to pass a gender-neutral statute. An Act that does not oppress women and gives them equal rights to their ancestors’ land. As a result, the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 was amended. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the “Amendment Act”) went into effect on September 9, 2005. This Amendment Act made it possible for women to be legal joint-heirs and receive coparcenary property in the same way as males. It ended gender discrimination and ensured that women’s fundamental right to equality was not breached in this matter.
Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was altered in order to move on with the reform. It stated that “as of and from the commencement” of the Amendment Act, 2005, the daughter of a coparcener shall have a right to the coparcenary property by birth, just as the son does. The girl will be held to the same obligations as the son. This is referred to as “unobstructed legacy.”
People were perplexed by the Supreme Court’s contradictory rulings in the Phulavati and Danamma cases. The extent to which a daughter has coparcenary rights over the ancestral property was a point of contention. This prepared the stage for a Supreme Court appeal. The Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma cleared the air and clarified how a combined Hindu family’s daughter is also a legal heir and has the right to inherit coparcenary property.
“Devolution of interest in coparcenary property- When a Hindu male dies after the commencement of this Act, having at the time of his death an interest in a Mitakshara coparcenary property, his interest in the property must devolve by survivorship among the surviving members of the coparcenary and not in accordance with this Act,” according to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (before amendment).
Women, on the other hand, were not considered to be legal heirs to the family property in the same way that men were. The reason for her exclusion was that she would eventually marry and join another family.
In the case of a coparcener’s wife, the explanation was that she was not a direct descendant of the progenitor. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, needed to be amended because of this discriminatory attitude toward gender and the violation of women’s fundamental rights.
The evolution of the law over time:
The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 was passed after five decades of debate about whether or not a woman has the right to inherit coparcenary property. Coparcenary property refers to land that a Hindu inherits from his father, grandpa, or great grandpa. Any person who has the right to inherit ancestral property through birth is referred to as a coparcener.
The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005 made some changes.
- It changed the rule that denied daughters the opportunity to inherit coparcenary property.
- If a Hindu dies, the coparcenary property is distributed to the daughter in the same way that it is distributed to the sons.
- It was established that a coparcener’s daughter, like his son, is a coparcener by birth.
- It abolished the survivorship rule and replaced it with Testamentary Succession and Intestate Succession.
- A girl, like a boy, has the right to demand a split in a Hindu Undivided Family.
- A daughter can sell her portion of the coparcenary property in her own will.
- If a partition occurs shortly before a female coparcener dies, the coparcenary property will pass to the children of the female coparcener.
In the coparcenary property, the coparcener has the right to partition. This made retroactive application of the statute impossible. Many previous agreements would be reopened as a result of such an application. To circumvent this issue, the court set the 20th of December 2004 as the deadline for retroactive application of the modified statute. The court did say, however, that if a daughter still seeks partition to get a share picked out, it cannot be denied based on an oral family settlement supported by public papers.
The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005, on the other hand, was found to be more gender-neutral. It removed the features of gender discrimination and oppression connected with the 1956 Act, as well as the fundamental right to equality for women. It made it possible for women to inherit the Mitakshara Coparcenary Property as coparceners. It respected constitutional ideals by granting women equal rights. The Amendment Act, on the other hand, comes with its own set of legal ambiguities.
Prakash and Others v. Phulavati and Others:
- The Supreme Court of India stated in this case that “the rights of coparceners under the Amendment Act, 2005 apply to the alive daughters of live coparceners as of September 9, 2005, regardless of the daughters’ birth date.”
- It means that if the father was a coparcener who died before September 9, 2005, the coparcener’s living daughter would not be entitled to inherit the coparcenary property.
- This case shed light on how the Amendment Act of 2005 was interpreted. It specified that if the coparcener died before the Act’s inception, the Act would not apply to him. It indicates that the survivorship rule will apply in such instances, and the daughter will have no claim to the coparcenary property.
Danamma v. Amar Singh:
The Supreme Court of India ruled in this case that if the father was a coparcener who died before September 9, 2005, and a prior petition for partition by a male coparcener was pending, the female coparceners are entitled to a share.
The court stated that the provisions of Section 6 of the Amendment Act are retroactive and grant the daughter absolute rights to be a coparcener from the moment she is born. In contrast to the ruling in the Phulavati case, this determination was made. As a result, both of the aforementioned judgements were in disagreement with one another, resulting in a slew of doubts about a daughter’s coparcenary rights in inheriting her late father’s coparcenary property. As a result, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India granted an appeal.
Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma and Others:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India handed down a 122-page decision in this matter. The court ruled that women have historically been treated unfairly when it comes to being a coparcener and that they must be given equal rights regardless of whether the Amended Act, 2005 is applied prospectively or retrospectively.
The birth right of a coparcener, referred to as “unobstructed heritage” under Mitakshara coparcenary, is explained in Section 6(1)(a) of the Amendment Act, 2005. The court reasoned that because the coparcener has a right to the ancestral property by birth, the father (coparcener) does not need to be alive at the time of the amendment. It is thus because the daughter’s coparcenary rights are bestowed by her birth, not through blocked inheritance. As a result, the idea established in the Phulavati case that the father (coparcener) and daughter must be alive on the date the Amendment Act, 2005 went into effect was overruled.
It was decided in this case that girls had the same claim to coparcenary property as sons, even though the father died before the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 was enacted.
It further stated that the rights conferred by the amendment apply to live daughters of live coparceners as of September 9, 2005, regardless of the daughter’s date of birth.
It was decided in this case that girls had the same claim to coparcenary property as sons, even though the father died before the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 was enacted.
It further stated that the rights conferred by the amendment apply to live daughters of live coparceners as of September 9, 2005, regardless of the daughter’s date of birth.