ABSTRACT:
This abstract addresses the issue of a daughter’s right to property, focusing on the importance of gender equality and empowerment. Historically, women faced discrimination in inheritance and property rights due to patriarchal structures. However, legal reforms and social awareness have sought to grant daughters equal property rights. The abstract highlights the varying extent of these reforms globally. Empowering daughters with property rights has positive socio-economic implications, including increased economic independence, improved family well-being, and enhanced opportunities for education and entrepreneurship. Yet, challenges like cultural norms and lack of awareness hinder the full implementation of gender-equitable property rights.
Advocacy and awareness campaigns are essential to foster an environment supportive of gender equality and property rights. Collaborative efforts between governments, civil society, and international organizations are crucial to creating a just and inclusive society. Recognizing and enforcing a daughter’s right to property is a significant step towards achieving gender equality and empowering women. Equal inheritance and property ownership opportunities can lead to daughters’ flourishing and their valuable contributions to society’s progress.
BRIEF HISTORY:
During the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act in 1956, legislators did not see the need to grant daughters equal rights in their father’s coparcenary property. The prevailing belief was that after marriage, a daughter would belong to another family and should not inherit her father’s Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) coparcenary property. This perspective overlooked the fact that daughters remain an integral part of their families even after marriage.
However, the discriminatory provisions were challenged over time, recognizing the unfairness of denying daughters their rightful share in inherited property. The amendment to the Hindu Succession Act in 2005 was a significant step towards removing gender biases and promoting equality in property rights. The amendment granted daughters coparcenary rights if they and their fathers were alive on the amended date.
Nonetheless, a recent judgment by a three-judge bench, led by Justice A.K. Sikri, went further by asserting that daughters should have inheritance rights equal to those of sons even from the time of the original law’s codification in 1956. This landmark decision upheld the principle that daughters’ status as part of the family remains unchanged throughout their lives, warranting equal entitlement to ancestral property. The evolution of these legal provisions signifies a progressive and inclusive approach toward gender equality in property rights, acknowledging the invaluable role daughters play in their families lives.
CONCEPT OF COPARCENER
A coparcener is an individual who possesses legal rights in ancestral property from birth. In Hindu law, coparcenary property is inherited from one’s father, grandfather, and great-grandfather. Before the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act in 1956, coparceners were limited to male descendants, including sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons, who were part of the joint family. Before the 1956 Act, Hindus were governed by various shastras and customary laws, leading to regional variations in matters of succession and inheritance. The Hindu Law of Inheritance Act in 1929 marked an early attempt to include women in matters related to inheritance, granting rights to up to three female heirs: son’s daughter, daughter’s daughter, and sister.
The Hindu Succession Act of 1956 was a significant legislation aimed at amending and codifying the law of succession and inheritance, striving for equal rights between sons and daughters. This Act applied to all Hindus, including Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs, and recognized two types of property: ancestral and self-acquired property. Before the 2005 amendment to the Act, only males were recognized as coparceners in the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). Female members were not considered lineal descendants of the coparcener and were not entitled to inherit ancestral property. The ancestral property was divided based on survivorship rule, and women were excluded from becoming Kartas (managers) of the HUF and managing its affairs.
The 2005 amendment brought significant changes to this discriminatory system, granting daughters coparcenary rights equal to sons. Daughters were given an equal share in ancestral property, promoting gender equality and empowering women in matters of inheritance and property rights.
DAUGHTER’S RIGHT TO PROPERTY AFTER 2005
The amendment act of 2005 marked a significant milestone in addressing gender discrimination in coparcenary property. Before this amendment, daughters were not considered coparceners and did not have the right to inherit ancestral property from birth, unlike sons. However, with the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, the coparcener’s rights in Hindu undivided family (HUF) property were redefined.
After the 2005 amendment, daughters were granted the same rights as sons and became coparceners in the HUF from birth. This meant that daughters could now inherit ancestral property and demand a partition of the HUF. Additionally, they were entitled to dispose of their share in coparcenary property at their discretion. The daughters’ liability in the HUF was also made equal to that of the sons. It is essential to note that only daughters born within the HUF would have coparcenary rights; daughters married into other families would not. However, once married, a daughter would continue to be a coparcener in her parental HUF but cease to be a member of it. If she happens to be the eldest coparcener in her father’s HUF, she could become the Karta of that HUF.
Upon the death of a married daughter, her share in the HUF property would pass on to her legal heirs, typically her children. While she was alive, the daughter did not have the right to gift her share in the HUF property, but she could do so through a will. Furthermore, the amendment also repealed Section 24 of the act, which previously denied the rights of a widow to inherit her husband’s property upon her remarriage.
Overall, the 2005 amendment brought about a much-needed change, empowering daughters with equal rights to ancestral property and promoting gender equality in matters of inheritance and coparcenary rights.
THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 6 OF THE HINDU SUCCESSION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2005
The applicability of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 has been a subject of confusion due to conflicting judgments in various cases.
In the case of Prakash and others v. Phulavati (2016), a two-judge bench ruled that the rights of coparceners apply to living daughters of living coparceners. If the father had passed away before the amendment’s enforcement on 9th September 2005, the daughter would have no right in the coparcenary property in that situation. Both the father and the daughter must be alive on the date of the amended law for the daughter to claim benefits under the 2005 act.
However, in the case of Danamma v. Amar (2018), another two-judge bench held a different view. They stated that even if the father died before 2005, the daughter would still be entitled to an equal share in the coparcenary property.
These conflicting judgments led to ambiguity regarding the interpretation of Section 6 and the coparcenary rights of daughters in their father’s property.
In the recent case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020), a three-judge bench, led by Justice A.K. Sikri, provided clarity on the matter. They ruled that daughters are entitled to equal property rights, even if they were not born at the time of the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and even if the father had passed away before the amendment’s enforcement. Justice Mishra emphasized that daughters remain loving daughters throughout life and continue to be coparceners regardless of their father’s survival.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Vineeta Sharma case stated that the 2005 amendment would have a retrospective effect in conferring rights on daughters, who were alive at the time of the amendment, even if they were born before it. In conclusion, the Vineeta Sharma case resolved the confusion and established that daughters have equal coparcenary rights in their father’s property, irrespective of whether the father was alive on or before the date of the 2005 amendment.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the legal landscape concerning the coparcenary rights of daughters in their father’s property has been marked by conflicting interpretations and judgments. However, the recent landmark decision in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) has provided a definitive resolution to the prevailing ambiguity.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Vineeta Sharma case established that daughters possess equal coparcenary rights in their father’s property, irrespective of their birth timing about the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and even if the father had passed away before the enactment of the amendment. The Court clarified that daughters, as loving daughters, remain coparceners throughout their lives, regardless of their father’s survival. By determining that the 2005 amendment carries a retrospective effect, conferring rights upon daughters alive at the time of the amendment, the Court has effectively rectified the confusion and resolved the conflicting beliefs on this matter.
This landmark judgment reinforces the principle of gender equality and endeavors to ensure fair and equitable property rights for daughters, thereby upholding the spirit of justice and inclusivity within the Hindu family structure. As a result, the legal position on daughters’ coparcenary rights has been firmly established, providing a sound basis for future jurisprudence in this domain.
Keywords:
Daughters, Coparcenary rights, Hindu family property, Hindu Succession Act, Gender equality, Equal share, HUF (Hindu Undivided Family), Inheritance rights, Gender discrimination, Ancestral property, Amendment act, Legislative changes, Hindu law
REFERENCES
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/32601/32601_2018_33_1501_23387_Judgement_11-Aug-2020.pdf.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=7c9477cb-02f5-41a8-b6e1-71ab42ad4db6.
http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/1956/E-2173-1956-0038-99150.pdf.
https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1961-43.pdf.
References
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/32601/32601_2018_33_1501_23387_Judgement_11-Aug-2020.pdf.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=7c9477cb-02f5-41a8-b6e1-71ab42ad4db6.
http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/1956/E-2173-1956-0038-99150.pdf.
Name: Ankit prakash
Collage: Presidency university, Bangalore
Course: BBA LLB(4th year)
