Authored By: Sakshi Mishra
United University
Case. Basic Information
The case is Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Others.[10]
Cite as (2020) 9 SCC 1
Name of the court is Supreme Court of India.
Date of judgment- 11 August 2020
The bench comprised of Justice Arun Mishra, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice M.R. Shah.
This is a Three-Judge Bench.
AREA OF PRACTICE: Hindu Personal Law, Property Law, Succession Law
The relevant law: Law in question here is Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Section 6 as amended by Hindu Succession (Amendment)Act,2005.
Introduction
Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma is a landmark ruling that reinforces the principle of equality remarried in India.The Supreme Court of India considered a persistent question over the interpretation regarding Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended in the year 2005.Until amendment Daughters were overwhelmingly excluded as coparceners in a Hindu Mitakshara Joint Family (whereas Sons acquired this status at birth).The Supreme Court of India examined the matter. Clarified the law.It held that “by birth a daughter is a coparcener in her own right…”It depends not on the fact that her father was alive at the time of its implementation.This judgement also upheld the equality before law under Articles 14 and 15 by eliminating discrimination against daughters.
Facts of the Case
The members of a Hindu family had been at odds over ancestral property division.Vineeta Sharma claimed her rightful share in the ancestral property as a daughter under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.The respondents had contended that as the father died on 1st September, 2005 i.e. before coming into force of the Amendment on 9th September, 2005, wherein a daughter would become a coparcener in her own right and have equal rights to inherit ancestral property, she could not claim such status.They contended that the amendment only would affect a father living on October 2023.
The Supreme Court of India: A Case for Federalism In contrast to the manner in which this issue had been interpreted in cases before it,
The judgement in Prakash v. Phulavati (2016) held that the father must be alive on 9 September 2005 for the daughter to claim rights.
The Court, on the other hand in Danamma v.Amar (2018)daughters were given rights even when the father died before the amendment. This conflict of opinions led to confusion in the nation. Because of this differing opinion, the matter was placed before a three-judge bench for an authoritative decision on Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act.
This case was not just not a mere property dispute but also related to a significant constitutional provision regarding equal inheritance right of daughters under Hindu law.
Legal Issues
The Supreme Court of India analysed the following questions:
Is a daughter by birth coparcener under amended Sec. 06 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956?
Ans: The father should have been alive on the day of commencement, that is, 9 September 2005 for a daughter to claim coparcenary rights.
Retroactive effect: does the amendment apply prospectively or retroactively?
Did the earlier decisions in Prakash v. Phulavati and Danamma v. Amar misinterpret Section 6 of the Act?
Arguments Presented
Sharma, the appellant argued that 2005 amendment to Section 6 of the Act aimed at doing away with gender discrimination in the Mitakshara system.
It provides that a daughter shall, by birth, have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son.
Her rights are not contingent upon her fathers survival on the date of the amendments passage.
The appellant also contended that it would go against the objects of achieving equality of daughters in inheritance for the father to have to be alive on 9 September 2005.
That would be an unconstitutional view as it violates Articles 14, and 15 of the Constitution whereby discrimination on the grounds of gender is not permitted.
It was also contended on behalf of the appellant that the condition in Prakash v. Phulavati imposed by this Court is not found in the statute and it was therefore wholly erroneous.
The respondents contended that the amendment was of prospective nature and could not alter rights which had crystallised prior to 9 September 2005.
They argued that if the father passed away before the amendment succession had already occurred by operation of law and therefore daughter never acquired a right in coparcenary.
The respondents have heavily relied on the judgement passed in Prakash v. Phulavati, which held that since both the daughter and father need to be alive as at 9 September 2005, therefore the amendment does not apply.
Court’s Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court of India had to assess the object behind the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.
It said that Parliament intended to abolish discrimination against daughters thus affording equal rights in property owned by their forefathers.
The Court held that the right of a coparcener is by birth and not by the death of father.After the amendment, when the law contended that daughters are coparceners by birth, it never made sense to ask whether or not the father was alive at that time.The language of Section 6 was examined by the Bench. Stated that amendment had provisions for prospective benefits. The amendment came into force on 9 September 2005 but this is one of those rights which are already recognized to begin from birth.Consequently, daughters alive on the commencement day of the amendment have rights irrespective of their biological fathers status.The Court stressed that the aim of the amendments was to achieve gender equality.A narrow approach would defeat the purpose of Parliament. Perpetuate discrimination.
Judgment and Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court of India held in favour of the appellant as follows:
A daughter is a coparcener by birth as son.
– No disinheritance option: The daughter cannot have her inheritance rights taken away just because she dies before 9 September 2005, being therefore excluded from the father’s estate.
The amended Section 6 (2) follows the position of a living daughter on the date when the amendments start, irrespective of whether her father is alive.
Past interpretations which were at variance with this pronouncement, Prakash v. Phulavati or overruled;
Only valid partitions (i) registered before 20 th December, 2004 by a partition deed registered and, (ii) by virtue of final decree of a competent civil court remain immune from none of the provisions applied.
The legally binding principle laid down by the Court is that a daughter acquires coparcenary status by birth as son under amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Its existence is not contingent on the fact that her father was still alive at all on 9 September 2005.
Critical Analysis
The Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma decision is considered to be an important ruling on Indian property and inheritance law.It substantiates rights for women by affording daughters similar joint family rights with respect to sons under the Mitakshara system.A good feature of this judgment has been that it resolved some disputes arising from earlier decisions such as Prakash v. Phulavati (2016) and Danamma v. Amar (2018).
Prior to this there had been uncertainty whether a female child could seek her entitlement in a joint family property if her father was not alive on 9 September 2005.
This was clarified by the Supreme Court of India. Mad sole rule applicable in all of India remove ambiguity from law.The judgement also interpreted the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 in a teloscentric manner.
The Court interpreted it from the perspective of its aim to end discrimination against women of merely taking the words of the law literally.
This method is in accordance with the Constitutions Articles 14 and 15 which ensures treatment that does not discriminate because of gender.
Also, daughters are given rights in the family property equally like sons from birth as per the judgment.
The Court discarded a rule not required by the law by stating that it was of no consequence whether or not the father survived.So that daughters have an equal right in the beginning just like sons.
However this still causes some problems in practice.
Although daughters have legal rights, when it comes to effectively getting what they are legally entitled to claim some of them still struggle against social pressure, the lack of awareness and protracted court battles.Seated traditional attitudes cannot be forced to change, alone the judgment.Successful treatments are based on individuals having an awareness of their rights, functional and accessible legal systems as well as social acceptance.
The judgment is, however, a step in the right direction towards gender justice notwithstanding these challenges.
It empowers women economic security & fair inheritance rights and depicts the overall changing trend for equality in India through the Constitution.
Conclusion
One of the key judgment that have defined modern Hindu succession/matrimonial law is in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma. The Supreme Court of India settled a legal controversy by stating that daughters are deemed to be a member of the coparcenary property of birth irrespective or in spite of whether her father was alive on the date of 2005 amendment. The ruling pulled together case law and cited concepts of dignity, equality, and fairness. It reshaped the perception of daughters in Hindu households, and validated Parliament’s goal to eliminate gender-based discrimination. This ruling affects future property cases and women’s rights in India. It reminds us that legal change needs to be done in a way that promotes society rather than perpetuating inequality. Thus the initial starting point provided by Vineeta Sharma is far reaching in Indian inheritance and not a baby step for Gender Justice.
Reference(S):
Why is this issue relevant? vi. Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma (2020) 9 SCC 1.
Prakash v Phulavati (2016) 2.
Danamma @ Suman Surpur v. Amar (2018) 3 SCC 343
Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.
Art 14 and Art 15 constitution of India
