In a patriarchal society like India, where women are generally considered as
worthless, they have got very fewer rights over ancestral properties compared to
men and the overall impact of this culture is resulting in giving fewer rights
and freedom to Indian women when compared to men. Imagine, a son, taking his
dad's property after his dad's demise, while legally or justifiably the property
must be shared equally by the son, daughter and others (Intestate Succession).
Now, as Supreme court announced the latest amendment in the Hindu Succession
Act, 1956 in 2005 which has been creating chaos in some manner. So, we would
look forward that how this three bench court has finally resolved the matter in
Vineeta Sharma Versus Rakesh Sharma And Ors
Vineeta Sharma's judgment is based on the premiss that the purpose of section 6
of the Act, as amended by the 2005 Amendment, was not to have an advantage or
retroactive effect on female offspring but to act retroactively. 4 Applicable
retroactively to legislation where it provides for entitlement-related benefits
that may arise before the approval of that legislation. Although the concept of
the retroactive application was explained concerning the 2005 amendment, it was
considered that the 2005 amendment makes the inheritance benefit available to
female offspring based on past facts, ie female offspring, ie birth 5.
Also, the court was aware that the law required a distinction to be made between
the right to demand a bet and the amount of the bet. The right of the co-partner
to claim a share in the plot's assets remains stable, although the specific
share available to the co-partner fluctuates in family births and deaths and is
only determined at the time of separation6. Thus, the court held that the
condition of Section 6 of the Act, as amended, the theoretical division concerns
only the extent of participation that the co-partner may request but does not
primarily affect the right to request participation7.
Consequently, it was held that, under section 6 of the Unamended Act, the death
of the semi-final coparcener, which gave rise to the theoretical partition only
affected the calculation of the claim, but not the right of action. Since her
daughter acquires partner status as a result of her birth as a result of the
2005 amendment, her right to a share under section 6 of the amended law is
independent of the theoretical division, according to the Vineeta Sharma
judgment, the death of her predecessor before 2005 amendment.
Except for the conclusion that the successor must be alive at the time the 2005
amendment enters into force to claim co-ownership, 8 the judgment in Prakash v
was set aside on the following grounds:
- In Prakash v. Phulavati, the court found that the theoretical separation
provided for in the provisions of Section 6 of the Unamended Act leads to the
separation of joint ownership in the event that the predecessor joint owner dies
before the 2005 amendment, and therefore not in a co-centric case. According to
the 2005 amendment, it should be divided into the hands of the applicant's
However, in Vineeta Sharma, the Apex Court concluded that the
theoretical division provided for in the aforementioned provision of Section 6
only affects the calculation of the proportion of the deceased spouse when the
heir has survived (according to Class I of the Act) or the heir or relatives of
the heir and the said theoretical division do not ultimately determine the
rights and responsibilities of the male and female offspring themselves, which
can only be assumed by a registered division deed or a division regulation drawn
up. by court 9.
- Contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court in Prakash v Phulavati,
Vineeta Sharma, the Apex Court held that, because of the express language of
section 6 (1) (a), a woman's successor does not depend on whether the partner or
predecessor is alive at the time the 2005 amendment enters into force.
- The purpose of Article 6 of the amended law is to emphasize the nature of
the right of a succession of the successor in title to unimpeded succession,
which was not considered by the court in Prakash v Phulavati.
We have discussed the case-laws relating with section 6 of the Hindu Succession
Act in the above texts. Now, as section 6 of Hindu Succession Act follows
Survivorship Rule which transfers ancestral property to only sons in the
offspring which was removed on 9th September 2005 but chaos created in the mind
of people questioning whether the father should be alive or not and else
discussed in above case laws has been finally resolved and it has been clearly
said that a woman or daughter has an equal right in ancestral property whether
the father is alive or not also a daughter would inherent liabilities of her
father after his demise.
Written By Vishesh