Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 534 views

    Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma & Ors.

    Uploaded by

    Sara agrawal
    1) The Supreme Court overturned previous rulings and clarified that under the 2005 Hindu Succession Act amendments, daughters have equal coparcenary rights in ancestral property irrespective of whether their father was alive after the amendments. 2) The judgment aimed to remove gender discrimination and aligned Indian law with the constitutional principle of equality by granting daughters the same rights as sons to ancestral coparcenary property. 3) While landmark, the judgment also highlighted the long delay of 15 years to settle the legal controversy and the challenges of enforcing daughters' rights at the ground level due to social norms, though it moved law and society in a more progressive direction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma & Ors.

    Uploaded by

    Sara agrawal
    534 views4 pages
    1) The Supreme Court overturned previous rulings and clarified that under the 2005 Hindu Succession Act amendments, daughters have equal coparcenary rights in ancestral property irrespective of whether their father was alive after the amendments. 2) The judgment aimed to remove gender discrimination and aligned Indian law with the constitutional principle of equality by granting daughters the same rights as sons to ancestral coparcenary property. 3) While landmark, the judgment also highlighted the long delay of 15 years to settle the legal controversy and the challenges of enforcing daughters' rights at the ground level due to social norms, though it moved law and society in a more progressive direction.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The Supreme Court overturned previous rulings and clarified that under the 2005 Hindu Succession Act amendments, daughters have equal coparcenary rights in ancestral property irrespective of whether their father was alive after the amendments. 2) The judgment aimed to remove gender discrimination and aligned Indian law with the constitutional principle of equality by granting daughters the same rights as sons to ancestral coparcenary property. 3) While landmark, the judgment also highlighted the long delay of 15 years to settle the legal controversy and the challenges of enforcing daughters' rights at the ground level due to social norms, though it moved law and society in a more progressive direction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    534 views4 pages

    Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma & Ors.

    Uploaded by

    Sara agrawal
    1) The Supreme Court overturned previous rulings and clarified that under the 2005 Hindu Succession Act amendments, daughters have equal coparcenary rights in ancestral property irrespective of whether their father was alive after the amendments. 2) The judgment aimed to remove gender discrimination and aligned Indian law with the constitutional principle of equality by granting daughters the same rights as sons to ancestral coparcenary property. 3) While landmark, the judgment also highlighted the long delay of 15 years to settle the legal controversy and the challenges of enforcing daughters' rights at the ground level due to social norms, though it moved law and society in a more progressive direction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    VINEETA SHARMA VS. RAKESH SHARMA & ORS.

    ((2020) 10 AUGUST SC)

    CASE NO: -CIVIL APPEAL NO. DIARY NO.32601 OF 2018


    APPELLANT - VINEETA SHARMA
    Vs.
    RESPONDENTS - RAKESH SHARMA & Ors.
    Bench: Justice Arun Mishra, Abdul Nazeer & M.R Shah
    DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/8/2020

    BACKGROUND –
    Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma 121 page judgment that was delivered on 11 August 2020 there was a
    background that has been asserted with the case i.e. before 1956 there was no codified law regarding the
    customary laws as there were different laws in every region but after (1956-2005) a proper law has been
    there regarding the Succession under Hindu families i.e. Ancestral Property to be dissolved by survivor-
    ship rule only and males were considered to be the coparceners up to 3 Generations, so the rule lasted till
    2005. But after the amendment came in 2005 of Hindu Succession Act things got changed as there has
    been amendment under section 6 of the Act and the rule of Survivor-ship has been removed with
    Testamentary and Interstate Succession. However, between this verdict by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
    there were several other judgments i.e., Prakash v. Phulwati (2016) as in this case it was held by the
    court that the father must be alive at the date of 9 September 2005 as when the act got amended but it
    was overruled in case of Danamma v. Amar (2018) as it was said that the father need not be alive but
    this was creating the confusion. So, finally in recent judgment court cleared the confusion.

    FACTS –
    The facts of the case are as, One Ms. Vineeta Sharma (Appellant) filed a case against her two brothers
    Mr. Rakesh Sharma & Satyendra Sharma, and her father Sh. Dev Dutt Sharma (respondent). He expired
    on December 11, 1999. One of his sons expired on July 1, 2001 (unmarried). The Appellant claimed that
    being the daughter she was entitled to ¼ of the share in the property of her father. The case of the
    Respondents was that after her marriage, she ceased to be a member of the Joint family. The Hon’ble
    Delhi High Court disposed of the appeal as the amendments of 2005 did not benefit the Appellant as the
    father of the Appellant passed away on December 11, 1999.
    Now, this case reached before the supreme court, but before this case, there are two major cases on the
    same grounds for which the divisional bench already rendered verdicts. The two cases are;
    In PRAKASH & ORS. V. PHULAVATI & ORS case, the court held that section 6 is not retrospective
    in operation, and it applies when both coparceners and his daughter were alive on the date of
    commencement of Amendment Act, 9th, September 2005
    In DANAMMA SUMAN SURPUR & ANR. V. AMAR & ORS. Case court Stated that any coparcener
    including a daughter can claim a partition in the coparcenary property, even the coparcener’s father was
    not alive when the substituted provision of section 6 of HAS come into force. The daughters, sons, and
    the widow were given his/her shares.
    Due to these two conflicting verdicts, this case was given to the larger bench of the supreme court
    headed by Justice Arun Mishra, with two other Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice M.R. Shah.

    ISSUE –
     Whether the amended Section 6 of the Act of 2005 requires the coparcener to be alive as of
    09.09.2020, for the daughter to claim rights in the coparcenary property?
     Whether the amended Section 6 of the Act of 2005 is prospective, retrospective, or retroactive?

    JUDGEMENT –
    Before the amendment of 2005 under the Hindu Succession Act (HAS), the rule of survivorship existed
    and under that rule, the males were coparceners up to 4th generation only, the females were not able to
    qualify for coparceners. After the amendment, the rule of survivorship had been canceled out and two
    major heads were to be considered for the partition of property that is “Testamentary and Interstate” so
    after that the daughters are also coparceners in her father’s inherited property and have equal liability
    same as sons. The fathers are free to pass his self-acquired property to anyone even someone out from
    the family with effect from 9th September 2005.
    The term ‘coparcener’ is not defined in the Succession Act. This Court considered it in Sathyaprema
    Manjunatha Gowda (Smt) v. Controller of Estate Duty, Karnataka
    The 174th Report of Law Commission of India recommended the adoption of the Kerala Model, and the
    amendments were effected in Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and in several States, giving
    coparcenary rights to the daughters.
    This case emphasizes the nature of the 2005 amendment in sec 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. The
    amendment applies retrospectively to provide benefits conditional arising even before the passing of
    such legislation.
    The effect of an amendment can be seen in a manner that any action triggering partition before
    amendment only affects the extent of share, not the right to claim. In other words, if the partition is
    crystallized no change will be done in respect of amendment but if the partition isn’t done the daughter’s
    right to claim to remain intact.
    The Hindu branch of dharma is influenced by the theological tenets of the Vedic Aryans. What is not
    modified or abrogated by the legislation or constitutional provisions still prevails, the basic Hindu law
    emanates from Vedas and past shrutis/smritis. Various dharma shastras regard custom as the basis of
    Hindu law as administered from time to time. Law has advanced and made progress as per the
    requirements of society and the prevailing ethos. The justice used to be administered by the emperors
    resolving the conflicts. The building of law has taken place over time. There are two main schools of
    Hindu law, i.e., Mitakshara and Dayabhaga. Mitakshara law applies to most parts of India except
    Bengal.
    As per Mitakshara law, no coparcener has any fixed share. It keeps on fluctuating by birth or by death. It
    is the said principle of administration of Mitakshara coparcenary carried forward in statutory provisions
    of section 6. Even if a coparcener had left behind a female heir of Class I or a male claiming through
    such female Class I heir, there is no disruption of coparcenary by statutory fiction of partition. Fiction is
    only for ascertaining the share of a deceased coparcener, which would be allotted to him as and when
    the actual partition takes place. The deemed fiction of partition is for that limited purpose. The classic
    Shastris Hindu law excluded the daughter from being a coparcener, which injustice has now been done
    away with by amending the provisions in consonance with the spirit of the Constitution.
    The judgment emphasized irrespective of the survivorship of the father, the daughter acquires the right
    of the coparcener from birth and other related rights. While giving a contrary view in this case.
    In this manner the court was overruled the two verdicts i.e., Prakash v. Phulavati and Mangammal v.
    T.B. Raju & Ors as irrespective of the living status of the father, the daughter gets the coparcenary right
    from birth.
    Giving the daughter equal coparcenary rights aligns with the spirit of equality, under Article 14 of the
    Indian constitution.

    CONCLUSION –
    So, the basic reason why this judgment has been considered so important is that it removed the concept
    of gender inequality. While the Vineeta Sharma verdict is indeed laudable for achieving the noble and
    necessary objective of gender equality and gender justice, the fact that the controversy took close to 15
    years to be finally settled reflects the long journey towards justice. While the end effect of this latest
    verdict is no doubt an excellent development and progress in the right direction, it also highlights the
    debilitating impact on the financial security of women by such belated outcomes and the real estate
    economy if real estate transactions are frequently subject to such fluctuations in law. One hopes that in
    the days to come, the Indian judiciary not only continues to incline in favor of progressive values in
    keeping with its rich traditions, but it also does so with speed and at the same time provides
    predictability and clarity for investments in all areas including real estate. But the larger question is that
    whether this would be able to work on ground level or not because in our society there has been still
    places where daughters do not ask for their rights which she needs to ask as it will not be easy for them
    to ask for their share and not all the daughters can come to get their shares. So, the problem lies at the
    ground level but it is good that the judiciary has been removing the gender stereotypes from society and
    in the future let’s hope that the judiciary plays a good role in removing all the gender stereotypes from
    our society and that we must provide rights of every woman when required.

    You might also like