Prakash v. Phulavati (2015) MANU/SC/1241/2015
Quick Summary
This case clarifies who gets coparcenary rights after the 2005 Amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. The Supreme Court said the change is prospective. A daughter becomes a coparcener only if she and her father (the coparcener) were both alive on 9 September 2005. Old partitions remain closed. The High Court view was overruled and the rule was settled in clear terms.
Issues
- Does the 2005 Amendment apply if the father died before 9 September 2005?
- Can the Amendment apply to partitions already effected without a court decree?
- Is the Amendment retrospective or prospective in operation?
Rules
| Provision | Principle | Effect Here |
|---|---|---|
| Section 6 (HSA) as amended in 2005 | Daughters are coparceners like sons, but the benefit is for living daughters of living coparceners on 09-09-2005. | Right is prospective. No reopening of partitions finished before 09-09-2005. |
| Prospective Operation | Substantive amendments are prospective unless the statute says otherwise. | No express retrospective intent was found in the Amendment Act, 2005. |
Facts (Timeline)
Arguments
Appellants (Prakash & Ors.)
- The Amendment is prospective; no right if the father died before 09-09-2005.
- Settled partitions before the cut-off date cannot be reopened.
- No express intent for retrospective application is found in the statute.
Respondents (Phulavati & Ors.)
- Daughter is entitled under amended Section 6 to be treated as a coparcener.
- Claimed share notwithstanding father’s 1988 death.
- Sought application even to partitions without a court decree.
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that the 2005 Amendment is prospective. A daughter can claim coparcenary rights only if she and her father were alive on 09-09-2005. Past partitions, including those completed without a decree, are not reopened. As there was no express or necessary intent to apply the change retrospectively, the claim based on retrospective operation failed.
Ratio Decidendi
- Substantive amendments are prospective unless clearly made retrospective by the legislature.
- Living daughter–living coparcener on 09-09-2005 is the key condition for Section 6 benefits.
- Completed partitions before the cut-off date are not disturbed.
Why It Matters
The decision fixed a bright-line rule for daughters’ coparcenary claims. It prevents uncertainty by protecting pre-2005 arrangements and guides courts on timing and eligibility under Section 6.
Key Takeaways
- Amendment prospective; no automatic retrospective benefit.
- Both daughter and father must be alive on 09-09-2005.
- Old partitions remain undisturbed.
- Applies regardless of daughter’s birth date; timing relates to living status.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “9/9 Alive = Right Alive” — If both are alive on 09-09-2005, the daughter’s coparcenary right is alive.
- Check Date: Was the father alive on 09-09-2005?
- Check Status: Is the daughter also alive on that date?
- Conclude: If yes to both → coparcenary right; if no → no right.
IRAC Outline
Issue
Does the 2005 Amendment to Section 6 apply retrospectively or only to living daughters of living coparceners on 09-09-2005?
Rule
Substantive law changes are prospective unless the statute clearly says otherwise; amended Section 6 sets a cut-off.
Application
The father died in 1988. On 09-09-2005, he was not alive. Hence the daughter cannot claim as a coparcener under the amendment.
Conclusion
The Amendment is prospective. Benefits are limited to living daughters of living coparceners on the commencement date. Old partitions remain final.
Glossary
- Coparcenary
- A narrower group within a Hindu joint family with birth-based rights in ancestral property.
- Partition
- Division of joint family property into separate shares; after completion, shares become separate.
- Prospective Law
- A change that applies from a future date onward; it does not alter past events unless stated.
FAQs
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now