VINEETA SHARMA V. RAKESH SHARMA & ORS.

Renuka Netam, Student, NASLAR University of Law, Hyderabad, Telangana
  1. Case Title:  Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Ors., (2020) 9 SCC 1.
  1. Case Details:

Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of India.

Bench: Justice Arun Mishra, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, and Justice M.R. Shah.

Date of Decision: August 11, 2020. 

  1. Facts of the case:

The case revolves around the interpretation of section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1965 (in short, ‘the 1965 Act’) following the amendments introduced by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (in short, ‘the 2005 Act’), which granted daughters equal rights as coparceners in the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property, similar to those of sons. The appellant, Vineeta Sharma, filed a suit claiming her coparcenary rights as a daughter over her deceased father’s ancestral property, who passed away before the enactment of the 2005 Act.

  1. Issues raised:
    1. Whether the substituted section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 applies retrospectively, prospectively, or retroactively.
    2. Can daughters born before November 9, 2005, claim equal coparcenary as sons under the substituted section 6?
    3. Whether the father must be alive on November 9, 2005, the date of the amendment, for the daughter to claim her coparcenary rights.
    4. Whether the statutory fiction of partition under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 resulted in actual partition or affects daughters’ shares in pending decrees or appeals.
    5. Can the plea for oral partition be accepted under the substituted provision?
  1. Arguments 
    1. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s Argument:
      1. The amended act of 2005 aims to remove gender-based discrimination by providing daughters with coparcenary rights. It has a retroactive effect, permitting daughters to claim these rights from the date the amendment was implemented.
      2. The decision in Prakash v. Phulavati requiring a living daughter of a residing coparcener on the amendment’s commencement date fails to recognize that coparcenary rights accrued by birth, and the death of a coparcener does not end the coparcenary. 
      3. Post-amendment, coparcenary interest no longer devolves by survivorship but intestate or testamentary succession. 
      4. A plea of oral partition should be accepted if it is supported by public documents and evidenced as if decreed by a court. The petitioner argued that requiring only registered partitions would be overly restrictive and could invalidate genuine partitions.
  1. Petitioner’s Argument (represented by Mr. Amit Pal, Shri Sameer Shrivastava, and Ms. Anagha S. Desai):
    1. The substituted section 6 of the amended act should be applied retrospectively. Daughters should be granted coparcenary rights from their birth, regardless of whether their father was alive on November 9, 2005. 
    2. Section 6’s provision should be fully implemented to uphold the principles of gender equality as intended by the amendment by granting all living daughters born before or after November 9, 2005, equal coparcenary rights as sons. 
    3. The decision in the Prakash case is incorrect. The amended Section 6 should include all living daughters of coparceners, regardless of whether the coparceners were alive at the amendment’s commencement. 
    4. A notional partition is not an actual partition since it is meant to ascertain the share of the deceased coparcener. Adequately proved partitions by metes and bounds should not be reopened. Oral partitions should be recognized if supported by proper evidence. 
  1. Respondent’s Argument (represented by Shri Sridhar Potaraju):
    1. The decision in the Prakash case is argued to be correct, stating that married daughters are not part of the father’s joint family and only become part of their husband’s family post-marriage.
    2. The provisions of section   6  are to be construed prospectively’. It cannot be interpreted as unsettling past arrangements, meaning that the conferment of rights should not disturb the property distributed before December 20, 2004.
    3. Statutory partition must be recognized along with the severance of joint family status.
    4. Daughters whose fathers were not alive at the time of the act’s enactment cannot be considered daughters under the amended section 6 of the 2005 Act.
  1. Judgment:
  1. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, affirming that daughters possess equal coparcenary rights by birth, regardless of whether they were born before or after the amendment. This aligns with the constitutional principles of gender equality as set forth in Articles 14 and 15. 
  2. Coparcenary rights are inherent by birth and are independent of the father’s status, whether alive or de
  3. ceased. 
  4.  The amendment was held to be retroactive in the application, recognizing the rights of daughters before November 9, 2005. However, this does not affect any dispositions, alienations, partitions, or testamentary dispositions before December 20, 2004. 
  5. The statutory fiction of partition created by the original proviso to Section 6 was only for ascertaining the share of a deceased coparcener. It did not result in an actual partition or disruption of the coparcenary. Even if a preliminary decree has passed, the daughters will be given an equal share in pending proceedings for the final decree or an appeal.
  6. Pleas of oral partition are generally not accepted unless supported by public documents and proven as if effected by a court decree. A plea based solely on oral evidence is to be rejected outright. The exception is when public documents support an oral partition.
  7. The court overruled the decisions in Prakash v. Phulavati and Mangammal v. T.B. Raju and partially overruled the decision in Danamma @ Suman Surpur & Anr. v. Amar, which contradicted this decision.
  1. Legal Principle established:
  1. Equal Coparcenary Rights: Daughters have the same coparcenary rights as sons and this applies to daughters born before or after the 2005 Act, ensuring gender equality in inheritance laws.
  2. Oral Partition: Oral partitions are generally not accepted unless supported by public documents and proven as if effected by a court decree.
  1. Analysis:

The landmark case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma is a landmark decision building a sturdy base by setting a precedent for gender equality in the Hindu Succession law., reinforcing that daughters and sons have an equal foot in the ancestral property. This decision secures women’s rights by acknowledging daughters’ rights as coparceners from birth, ensuring their economic security and social justice. The ruling also elucidates the application of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, particularly Section 6, and addresses previous conflicting interpretations. Being a central law that has now been clarified in terms of its application, this ensures uniform application across India.

This case clarifies when an oral partition is considered valid and recognizes the incidences of cohesion in taking away property. This also favors the women after they are given the property as coarceners and safeguard their property.

However, this is not free of challenges. Deep-rooted patriarchal norms and practices make it challenging to change societal attitudes towards women’s right to inheritance. It might also be difficult to ensure uniform implementation. Another one might be raising awareness among people about daughters’ rights.

The whole judgment revolves around the HUF and is more likely focused on proving whether the Prakash case’s judgment was valid rather than emphasizing the constitutional principles of equality and discrimination. 

  1. Conclusion:

This landmark case reaffirms and clarifies daughters’ rights to family property, promoting gender equality in India’s inheritance laws and moving away from previous oppressive and discriminatory practices. It is a crucial step towards ensuring that the customary and inheritance laws are in pace with the modern principles of society based on equality and fairness in black letters of the law. 

  1. References:

Alok Prasanna Kumar, Clarifying the Rights of Daughters as Coparceners, 55 Econ. & Pol. Wkly. 12 (2020).

Danamina v. Amar, (2018) 3 SCC 343.

Prakash v. Phulanati, (2009) 6 SCC 99. 

Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Ors., (2020) 9 SCC 1.

Scroll to Top