Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma 2020 (Case Summary)

In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India upheld the equal rights of daughters in Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The Court clarified that a daughter’s coparcenary rights are by birth and are not dependent on whether her father was alive on the date of the amendment. This judgment overruled previous conflicting decisions and reinforced gender equality in property inheritance.

Table of Contents

Facts of Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma

The case revolved around the interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.
The plaintiff, Vineeta Sharma, claimed equal coparcenary rights in a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property.
The defendants, Rakesh Sharma and others, contested her claim, arguing that daughters could not inherit coparcenary property if the father had passed away before September 9, 2005 (the date of the amendment).
Before the 2005 amendment, under the Mitakshara law of succession, only male members were considered coparceners with the right to inherit ancestral property by birth.
The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, changed this by granting equal rights to daughters in ancestral property, making them coparceners by birth, just like sons.

Issues framed

Whether the 2005 Amendment Act applies retrospectively to grant daughters coparcenary rights from birth, even if the father was deceased before the amendment came into force?
Whether the amendment affected partitions or transactions finalized before December 20, 2004, (Enforcement date of Amendment) as provided in the proviso to Section 6(1)?
Whether the concept of “living daughter of a living coparcener” from Prakash v. Phulavati was a valid interpretation of the amendment?

Subordinate Court Judgment

The trial court ruled that since the father of the plaintiff (Vineeta Sharma) had passed away before the 2005 amendment, she was not entitled to coparcenary rights. The court relied on the interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, before it’s amendment, which did not grant daughters equal rights in coparcenary property. The trial court dismissed the suit on the basis that coparcenary rights could only be inherited by sons before the amendment and denied Vineeta Sharma’s claim to ancestral property.

On appeal, the Delhi High Court upheld the trial court’s ruling, following the Supreme Court’s judgment in Prakash v. Phulavati (2015). The High Court held that a daughter could only inherit coparcenary rights if her father was alive on September 9, 2005, the date the amendment came into force. The court rejected the claim of Vineeta Sharma, ruling that she could not claim a share in the ancestral property because her father had passed away before the amendment was enacted.

Judgment of Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma

The Supreme Court applied Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Amended by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005) which grants equal coparcenary rights to daughters by birth, just like sons, in a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF).

The Court examined whether the 2005 amendment applied retrospectively, prospectively, or retroactively. It held that coparcenary rights are conferred at birth, making the amendment retroactive (it applies to daughters born before the amendment but operates from 2005). The concept of “living daughter of living coparcener” was also rejected. Even if the father had died before 2005, the daughter’s right to coparcenary property would still be valid. However, partitions completed before December 20, 2004, under valid legal procedures, would not be reopened.

The Supreme Court held that the daughters have an equal right in the Hindu Undivided Family Property by the virtue of birth, irrespective of whether their father was alive amendment came into force. The partition transactions conducted before December 20, 2004 shall remain unaffected. The court overruled Prakash v. Phulvati (2015) and settled the law in favor of the daughter’s right to inheritance.