Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Ors (2020)
Quick Summary
This case settled a major question under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The Supreme Court said: a daughter’s right in coparcenary property is by birth, like a son’s. The father need not be alive on 09.09.2005. The amendment works in a retroactive way—its effect is felt now, but the root is an earlier event (birth). The judgment gives daughters equal rights and duties as coparceners.
Issues
- Must the coparcener (father) be alive on 09.09.2005 for the daughter to claim coparcenary rights?
- Is the 2005 amendment to Section 6 prospective, retrospective, or retroactive?
Rules
- The daughter’s right in coparcenary property is by birth. The father’s survival on 09.09.2005 is not required.
- Section 6 (as substituted in 2005) operates in a retroactive manner—recognizing present rights based on an earlier event (birth).
Facts — Timeline
Pre-2005: Under old law, daughters did not enjoy equal coparcenary status like sons in many families.
2005 Amendment: Section 6 was changed to give equal coparcenary rights to daughters.
Family Context: Appellant Vineeta Sharma sought her share in ancestral property. Her father had died before 09.09.2005.
High Court: Denied relief on the view that the father was not alive on the amendment date.
Supreme Court (2020): Clarified that the right is by birth; father’s survival on 09.09.2005 is irrelevant. Amendment is retroactive. Daughters and sons are equal coparceners.
Arguments
Appellant (Vineeta Sharma)
- Section 6 gives daughters coparcenary rights by birth.
- Father’s death before 09.09.2005 cannot defeat the right.
- Law aims at real equality within the family.
Respondents (Family)
- Claimed the amendment should not apply if the father died before 09.09.2005.
- Argued for a narrow, prospective reading of Section 6.
Judgment
Appeal Allowed. The Supreme Court set aside contrary views and settled the law.
- A daughter is a coparcener by birth, with the same rights and liabilities as a son.
- The father need not be alive on 09.09.2005.
- The substituted Section 6 is retroactive in its operation.
Ratio Decidendi
Section 6, as amended in 2005, recognizes daughters as coparceners by birth. The amendment’s effect is retroactive, so the father’s prior death does not defeat the right. Equality between sons and daughters in coparcenary is the core principle.
Why It Matters (Exam & Practice)
- Equality Landmark: Confirms equal coparcenary rights for daughters.
- Clarity on Time: Removes confusion about the father’s survival on 09.09.2005.
- Drafting & Advice: Partition suits, settlement deeds, and succession advice must reflect daughters’ full status.
Key Takeaways
- Right by birth, not by the father’s survival.
- Amendment is retroactive.
- Daughters = Sons for rights and liabilities.
- Marital status is irrelevant.
- Use updated Section 6 in all advisory and pleadings.
- Older contrary views are clarified by this ruling.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “Born → Equal → Retro”
- Born: Right starts at birth.
- Equal: Same rights and duties as sons.
- Retro: Amendment works retroactively—effect now, root earlier.
IRAC Outline
Issue
Does a daughter get coparcenary rights if her father died before 09.09.2005? What is the time-nature of Section 6?
Rule
Right by birth; father’s survival not needed; Section 6 is retroactive.
Application
Even though the father died earlier, the daughter’s birth-based status gives her a share as a coparcener.
Conclusion
Daughters have full coparcenary rights; amendment clarifies equality with sons.
Glossary
- Coparcenary
- A group of family members who inherit jointly and have a birth-based interest in ancestral property.
- Retroactive
- Law applies now but is tied to an earlier event (like birth), shaping present rights.
- Section 6 (HSA)
- Provision that defines coparcenary rights of sons and daughters in Hindu law after the 2005 change.
FAQs
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now