Does Section 6 HSA 2005 work retrospectively for daughters?

No. The Bombay High Court read Section 6 as operating on and from 9 September 2005. Vested rights before that date are not unsettled unless the statute clearly says so.

When does a daughter become a coparcener?

On and from 9 September 2005, a daughter of a coparcener becomes a coparcener by birth, with the same rights and liabilities as a son.

What is ‘devolution of interest’ in coparcenary?

Devolution happens on the death of a coparcener. If no coparcener has died, no devolution takes place; succession has not opened.

Why was the appellant’s claim rejected?

Because the claim sought retrospective recognition. The court held the amendment applies prospectively; the facts did not show devolution after 9-9-2005 supporting her demand.

What is the key takeaway from this case?

Section 6 grants equal coparcenary rights prospectively. Existing settled positions before 9-9-2005 remain undisturbed unless the law explicitly states otherwise.

Vaishali Satish Ganorkar & Anr. v. Satish Keshaorao & Ors.

CASE_TITLE • PUBLISH_DATE: 2025-10-31 • AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi • LOCATION: India

PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: HSA 2005, Section 6, daughters’ coparcenary

SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: retrospective effect, devolution of interest, Mitakshara

Slug: vaishali-satish-ganorkar-and-anr-v-satish-keshaorao-and-ors

```

Quick Summary

This case from the Bombay High Court explains how Section 6, Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 works. It asks: do daughters get coparcenary rights retrospectively? The Court said no. The section works on and from 9 September 2005. If no devolution of interest (no coparcener’s death) has happened after that date, a prior claim cannot succeed.

Rights are prospective, unless Parliament clearly says otherwise.
Existing settled shares before 9-9-2005 are not disturbed.
Appeal was dismissed; the daughter’s claim failed on these principles.

Issues

Is Section 6 (HSA 2005) retrospective, granting daughters coparcenary by birth for events before 9-9-2005?
Was the appellant entitled to a coparcenary share in her father’s ancestral property on the facts?

Rules

Prospective operation: Section 6 says “on and from 9-9-2005,” making daughters coparceners by birth from that date, with same rights and liabilities as sons.
Devolution principle: Interest in coparcenary devolves on death of a coparcener. If no death, succession has not opened.
No implied retrospectivity: Courts do not read laws as retrospective unless the text or necessary implication clearly says so; vested rights cannot be unsettled casually.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline graphic for Vaishali Ganorkar case

Family tree: Mahadevo had three sons—Keshavrao (appellant’s grandfather), Vasudevo, Pundalik.

Partition: Property “Khinkhinwale,” Camp, Amravati, went to Keshavrao; later partition proceeds reached all heirs, including respondent no.1 (father Satish).

Acquisitions: Respondent no.1 bought a Worli flat (Dr. Annie Besant Road) from those proceeds; later sold it, mortgaged, and invested in a company; then bought the suit property.

Suit: Appellant (daughter) claimed coparcenary right in father’s “ancestral” property.

Trial Court: Held the 2005 amendment is not retrospective; dismissed the suit.

Appeal: Appellants pressed retrospectivity before Bombay High Court—registered as Appeal No. 734 of 2011.

Arguments

Appellants (Daughters)

Section 6 should be read as retrospective; daughters must get equal coparcenary now.
Claimed share in the suit property as part of the larger ancestral line.

Respondents (Father & Ors.)

Section 6 acts prospectively; no devolution after 9-9-2005 → no opening of succession.
Transactions were individual acquisitions from past partitions and sales.

Judgment (Held)

Appeal dismissed. Section 6 applies on and from 9-9-2005; it is not retrospective.
Daughters born before 9-9-2005 become coparceners from that date. Their share flows when devolution happens after that date.
No devolution shown in this case; therefore, the claim to coparcenary share failed.
Courts will not disturb vested rights by reading retrospectivity into a statute without clear command.

Ratio

Section 6 HSA (2005) is prospective. Daughters are coparceners on and from 9-9-2005. A daughter’s share arises upon post-amendment devolution; earlier settled positions remain untouched unless Parliament states otherwise.

Why It Matters

Clarifies that equality under Section 6 works forward-looking, not backward.
Prevents disruption of vested shares and completed transactions before 9-9-2005.
Guides how to frame claims: check for a death of a coparcener after 9-9-2005.

Key Takeaways

Prospective Only

Daughters’ coparcenary starts from 9-9-2005, not before.

Needs Devolution

Share crystallizes when a coparcener dies after 9-9-2005.

Vested Rights Safe

No unsettling of pre-amendment positions without clear law.

Equality & Order

Balances gender equality with legal certainty.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “Nine-Nine-Oh-Five → Now Alive”

Date Check: Was the key event after 9-9-2005?
Devolution Check: Any death of a coparcener opening succession?
Claim Check: If both yes, compute daughter’s share; if not, claim fails.

IRAC

Issue	Rule	Application	Conclusion
Do daughters get a coparcenary share retrospectively?	Section 6 applies on and from 9-9-2005; devolution happens on death.	No post-2005 devolution established; transactions linked to earlier partition/sales.	Claim not maintainable; appeal dismissed; trial court upheld.

Glossary

Coparcenary: A narrower group within a Hindu joint family with birthright in ancestral property.
Devolution: Transfer of a deceased coparcener’s interest to others by operation of law.
Vested Right: A right that has already accrued and cannot be disturbed without clear legal authority.