Supreme Court Grants Daughters Equal Coparcenary Rights: Danamma vs. Amar (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 1 February 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 73

Judges: A.K. Sikri, J. and Ashok Bhushan, J.

Can daughters be denied their share in ancestral property simply because they were born before a certain date? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case concerning the rights of daughters in a Hindu joint family. This judgment clarifies the rights of daughters as coparceners, particularly in light of the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

The Supreme Court, in this case, examined whether daughters have coparcenary rights by birth, equal to those of a son, and whether these rights apply retroactively. The bench consisted of Justices A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, with the judgment authored by Justice A.K. Sikri.

Case Background

The case revolves around the family of Gurulingappa Savadi, who had two daughters (the appellants), two sons, and a wife. Gurulingappa passed away in 2001. Following his death, a suit for partition was filed by Amar, the son of one of Gurulingappa’s sons, seeking a share in the joint family property.

Amar argued that the daughters were not coparceners as they were born before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and that they had relinquished their share during their marriages. The daughters contested this, asserting their right to a share in the property.

The trial court ruled against the daughters, stating they could not be coparceners due to their birth dates and the High Court upheld this decision. The daughters then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court decreed the suit for partition, holding that the daughters were not entitled to any share as they were born before the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The court also rejected their claim based on the 2005 amendment.

The High Court upheld the trial court’s decision, confirming the decree. The daughters then filed a review petition, which was also dismissed by the High Court. Subsequently, the daughters appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, both before and after its amendment in 2005.

Prior to the 2005 amendment, Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, dealt with the devolution of interest in coparcenary property. It stated that when a male Hindu dies with an interest in Mitakshara coparcenary property, his interest would devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenary. However, if the deceased left behind a female relative specified in Class I of the Schedule, or a male relative claiming through such a female relative, the interest would devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, not by survivorship.

The original Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, stated:

“6. Devolution of interest in coparcenary property. —When a male Hindu dies after the commencement of this Act, having at the time of his death an interest in a Mitakshara coparcenary property, his interest in the property shall devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenary and not in accordance with this Act:
Provided that, if the deceased had left him surviving a female relative specified in Class I of the Schedule or a male relative specified in that class who claims through such female relative, the interest of the deceased in the Mitakshara coparcenary property shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be, under this Act and not by survivorship.
Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this section, the interest of a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition of the property had taken place immediately before his death, irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not.
Explanation 2.—Nothing contained in the proviso to this section shall be construed as enabling a person who had separated himself from the coparcenary before the death of the deceased or any of his heirs to claim on intestacy a share in the interest referred to therein.”

The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, significantly altered Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The amended provision confers upon a daughter of a coparcener the status of a coparcener by birth, with the same rights and liabilities as a son.

The amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, reads:

“6. Devolution of interest in coparcenary property.―(1) On and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005), in a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener shall,―
(a) by birth become a coparcener in her own right the same manner as the son;
(b) have the same rights in the coparcenery property as she would have had if she had been a son;
(c) be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenery property as that of a son,
and any reference to a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to include a reference to a daughter of a coparcener:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect or invalidate any disposition or alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of property which had taken place before the 20th day of December, 2004.
(2) Any property to which a female Hindu becomes entitled by virtue of sub-section (1) shall be held by her with the incidents of coparcenary ownership and shall be regarded, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, as property capable of being disposed of by her by testamentary disposition.
(3) Where a Hindu dies after the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005), his interest in the property of a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be, under this Act and not by survivorship, and the coparcenery property shall be deemed to have been divided as if a partition had taken place and,―
(a) the daughter is allotted the same share as is allotted to a son;
(b) the share of the pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter, as they would have got had they been alive at the time of partition, shall be allotted to the surviving child of such pre-deceased son or of such pre-deceased daughter; and
(c) the share of the pre-deceased child of a pre-deceased son or of a pre-deceased daughter, as such child would have got had he or she been alive at the time of the partition, shall be allotted to the child of such pre-deceased child of the pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter, as the case may be.
Explanation.―For the purposes of this sub-section, the interest of a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition of the property had taken place immediately before his death, irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not.
(4) After the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005), no court shall recognise any right to proceed against a son, grandson or great-grandson for the recovery of any debt due from his father, grandfather or great-grandfather solely on the ground of the pious obligation under the Hindu law, of such son, grandson or great-grandson to discharge any such debt:
Provided that in the case of any debt contracted before the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005), nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect―
(a) the right of any creditor to proceed against the son, grandson or great-grandson, as the case may be; or
(b) any alienation made in respect of or in satisfaction of, any such debt, and any such right or alienation shall be enforceable under the rule of pious obligation in the same manner and to the same extent as it would have been enforceable as if the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005) had not been enacted.
Explanation.―For the purposes of clause (a), the expression “son”, “grandson” or “great-grandson” shall be deemed to refer to the son, grandson or great-grandson, as the case may be, who was born or adopted prior to the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005).
(5) Nothing contained in this section shall apply to a partition, which has been effected before the 20th day of December, 2004.
Explanation.―For the purposes of this section “partition” means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court.]”

Arguments

The appellants (daughters) argued that they were entitled to a share in the joint family property as they were daughters of Gurulingappa Savadi, who died after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, came into force. They further argued that the 2005 amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, granted them coparcenary rights by birth, equal to those of a son.

The respondents (plaintiff and other family members) contended that the daughters were not coparceners as they were born before the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. They also argued that the daughters had relinquished their share at the time of their marriage by receiving gold and money.

The respondents relied on the unamended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which, according to them, did not recognize daughters as coparceners. The respondents also contended that the 2005 amendment was not applicable to the daughters as they were born before the said amendment came into force.

The appellants relied on the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, asserting that it granted daughters coparcenary rights by birth, irrespective of their birth date. They argued that the amendment aimed to remove gender bias and grant equal rights to daughters. The appellants also cited various High Court judgments that supported their interpretation of the 2005 amendment.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the daughters of Gurulingappa Savadi could be denied their share on the ground that they were born prior to the enactment of the Act and, therefore, cannot be treated as coparceners?
2. Whether, with the passing of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, the appellants would become coparceners “by birth” in their “own right in the same manner as the son” and are, therefore, entitled to equal share as that of a son?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

The Court also considered Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, both before and after the 2005 amendment.

Judgment

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities to support its reasoning:

• Anar Devi & Ors. v. Parmeshwari Devi & Ors. [(2006) 8 SCC 656]*: The Court followed this case to interpret Explanation 1 to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, regarding notional partition.
• Badrinarayan Shankar Bhandari v. Omprakash Shankar Bhandari [AIR 2014 Bom 151]*: The Court approved the Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court, which held that Section 6(1)(a) is prospective, while 6(1)(b), 6(1)(c), and 6(2) are retroactive.
• Prakash & Ors. v. Phulavati & Ors. [(2016) 2 SCC 36]*: The Court approved this judgment, which settled the controversy by holding that the amendment applies to living daughters of living coparceners as on 9-9-2005.
• Ganduri Koteshwaramma & Anr. v. Chakiri Yanadi & Anr. [(2011) 9 SCC 788]*: The Court followed this case, which held that the rights of daughters in coparcenary property are not lost merely because a preliminary decree has been passed in a partition suit.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to address gender inequality and ensure equal rights for daughters in Hindu joint families. The Court emphasized that the 2005 amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was a step towards removing the perceived disability and prejudice faced by daughters.

The Court highlighted that the amendment statutorily recognizes the rights of daughters as coparceners by birth, similar to sons. This recognition stems from the understanding that coparcenary is created by birth, and both sons and daughters should have equal rights. The Court also noted that the right to partition is inherent and can be availed of by any coparcener, including daughters.

The Court also considered the social context and the need for the law to evolve to meet the changing needs of society. The Court quoted Roscoe Pound’s words, emphasizing that “the law must be stable and yet it cannot stand still.”

The sentiment analysis of the reasons given by the Supreme Court is as follows:

The ratio of fact to law influencing the court’s decision is as follows:

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them. The Court rejected the argument that the 2005 amendment only applied to daughters born after the amendment. The Court also rejected the argument that the daughters had relinquished their rights by receiving gold and money at the time of marriage.

The Court’s decision was based on the plain language of the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which states that daughters become coparceners by birth in the same manner as sons. The Court also relied on the principle that social legislation should be interpreted in a manner that advances its purpose, which in this case was to remove gender bias and grant equal rights to daughters.

The Court held that the daughters are coparceners by birth and are entitled to a share in the joint family property. The Court stated that both the sons and the daughters of a coparcener have been conferred the right of becoming coparceners by birth.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“The amended provision now statutorily recognizes the rights of coparceners of daughters as well since birth. The section uses the words ‘in the same manner as the son’. It should therefore be apparent that both the sons and the daughters of a coparcener have been conferred the right of becoming coparceners by birth.”

“It is the very factum of birth in a coparcenary that creates the coparcenary, therefore the sons and daughters of a coparcener become coparceners by virtue of birth.”

“The fundamental changes brought forward about in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 by amending it in 2005, are perhaps a realization of the immortal words of Roscoe Pound as appearing in his celebrated treaties, The Ideal Element in Law, that “the law must be stable and yet it cannot stand still. Hence all thinking about law has struggled to reconcile the conflicting demands of the need of stability and the need of change.”

The Court’s decision was unanimous, with both Justices A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan agreeing on the outcome.

The judgment has significant implications for future cases, clarifying that daughters have equal coparcenary rights by birth, irrespective of their birth date. This decision ensures that daughters are not discriminated against in matters of inheritance and property rights.

The judgment reinforces the principle that the law must evolve to meet the changing needs of society and address social injustices.

Key Takeaways

• Daughters are coparceners by birth, with the same rights and liabilities as a son, as per the 2005 amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
• This right applies to all living daughters of living coparceners as of September 9, 2005, irrespective of their birth date.
• Preliminary decrees in partition suits can be amended to reflect the change in law brought about by the 2005 amendment.
• The judgment promotes gender equality and ensures that daughters are not discriminated against in matters of inheritance and property rights.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the trial court to draw a decree of partition in accordance with the judgment. The Court specified that the daughters would each be entitled to a 1/5th share in the property. The plaintiff, being the son of one of the sons, would be entitled to a 1/25th share.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that daughters are coparceners by birth, with the same rights and liabilities as a son, as per the 2005 amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. This decision changes the previous position of law, which did not recognize daughters as coparceners by birth.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Danamma vs. Amar is a landmark decision that clarifies the rights of daughters in Hindu joint families. The Court held that the 2005 amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, grants daughters coparcenary rights by birth, equal to those of a son. This decision ensures that daughters are not discriminated against in matters of inheritance and property rights. The judgment reinforces the principle that the law must evolve to meet the changing needs of society and address social injustices.