{"id":4830,"date":"2025-02-15T16:59:03","date_gmt":"2025-02-15T11:29:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/?p=4830"},"modified":"2025-03-12T01:29:07","modified_gmt":"2025-03-11T19:59:07","slug":"vineeta-sharma-v-rakesh-sharma-2020-9-scc-576-case-summary","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/vineeta-sharma-v-rakesh-sharma-2020-9-scc-576-case-summary\/","title":{"rendered":"Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma 2020 (Case Summary)\u200b"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t<div data-elementor-type=\"wp-post\" data-elementor-id=\"4830\" class=\"elementor elementor-4830\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<section class=\"elementor-section elementor-top-section elementor-element elementor-element-917020f elementor-section-full_width elementor-section-height-default elementor-section-height-default wpr-particle-no wpr-jarallax-no wpr-parallax-no wpr-sticky-section-no wpr-equal-height-no\" data-id=\"917020f\" data-element_type=\"section\" data-e-type=\"section\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-container elementor-column-gap-default\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-column elementor-col-100 elementor-top-column elementor-element elementor-element-5aa9190\" data-id=\"5aa9190\" data-element_type=\"column\" data-e-type=\"column\">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-wrap elementor-element-populated\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<section class=\"elementor-section elementor-inner-section elementor-element elementor-element-0360c7f elementor-section-boxed elementor-section-height-default elementor-section-height-default wpr-particle-no wpr-jarallax-no wpr-parallax-no wpr-sticky-section-no wpr-equal-height-no\" data-id=\"0360c7f\" data-element_type=\"section\" data-e-type=\"section\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-container elementor-column-gap-default\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-column elementor-col-100 elementor-inner-column elementor-element elementor-element-f71d46a\" data-id=\"f71d46a\" data-element_type=\"column\" data-e-type=\"column\">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-wrap elementor-element-populated\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-d818b36 elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading\" data-id=\"d818b36\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"heading.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<h1 class=\"elementor-heading-title elementor-size-default\">Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma 2020 (Case Summary)<\/h1>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-e246dd3 elementor-widget elementor-widget-image\" data-id=\"e246dd3\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"image.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<img fetchpriority=\"high\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1312\" height=\"736\" src=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-courtroom-illustration-of-the-vineeta-_nL8f9hp4T2y1Iviwny5qpQ_lbCcERLOT32IrX-EgXmN2g-1.jpeg\" class=\"attachment-1536x1536 size-1536x1536 wp-image-4834\" alt=\"Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma 2020 9 SCC 576\" srcset=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-courtroom-illustration-of-the-vineeta-_nL8f9hp4T2y1Iviwny5qpQ_lbCcERLOT32IrX-EgXmN2g-1.jpeg 1312w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-courtroom-illustration-of-the-vineeta-_nL8f9hp4T2y1Iviwny5qpQ_lbCcERLOT32IrX-EgXmN2g-1-300x168.jpeg 300w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-courtroom-illustration-of-the-vineeta-_nL8f9hp4T2y1Iviwny5qpQ_lbCcERLOT32IrX-EgXmN2g-1-1024x574.jpeg 1024w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-courtroom-illustration-of-the-vineeta-_nL8f9hp4T2y1Iviwny5qpQ_lbCcERLOT32IrX-EgXmN2g-1-150x84.jpeg 150w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-courtroom-illustration-of-the-vineeta-_nL8f9hp4T2y1Iviwny5qpQ_lbCcERLOT32IrX-EgXmN2g-1-768x431.jpeg 768w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 1312px) 100vw, 1312px\" title=\"\">\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-0d9ee86 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"0d9ee86\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">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\u2019s 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.<\/span><b>\u00a0<\/b><\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 ez-toc-wrap-left counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-custom ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #000000;color:#000000\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #000000;color:#000000\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/vineeta-sharma-v-rakesh-sharma-2020-9-scc-576-case-summary\/#Facts_of_Vineeta_Sharma_v_Rakesh_Sharma\" >Facts of Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma\u00a0\u00a0<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/vineeta-sharma-v-rakesh-sharma-2020-9-scc-576-case-summary\/#Issues_framed\" >Issues framed<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/vineeta-sharma-v-rakesh-sharma-2020-9-scc-576-case-summary\/#Subordinate_Court_Judgment\" >Subordinate Court Judgment\u00a0\u00a0<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/vineeta-sharma-v-rakesh-sharma-2020-9-scc-576-case-summary\/#Judgment_of_Vineeta_Sharma_v_Rakesh_Sharma\" >Judgment of Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma\u00a0<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/vineeta-sharma-v-rakesh-sharma-2020-9-scc-576-case-summary\/#Read_the_Judgment_Below\" >Read the Judgment Below<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Facts_of_Vineeta_Sharma_v_Rakesh_Sharma\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Facts of Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma\u00a0\u00a0<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><ol><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The case revolved around the interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The plaintiff, Vineeta Sharma, claimed equal coparcenary rights in a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">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).<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">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.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">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.<\/span><\/li><\/ol><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Issues_framed\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Issues framed<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><ol><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">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?<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">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)?<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Whether the concept of \u201cliving daughter of a living coparcener\u201d from <em><a href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/prakash-vs-phulavati-air-2016-sc-769-case-summary\/\">Prakash v. Phulavati<\/a><\/em> was a valid interpretation of the amendment?<\/span><\/li><\/ol><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Subordinate_Court_Judgment\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Subordinate Court Judgment\u00a0\u00a0<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">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&#8217;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\u2019s claim to ancestral property.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">On appeal, the Delhi High Court upheld the trial court\u2019s ruling, following the Supreme Court\u2019s judgment in <em><a href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/prakash-vs-phulavati-air-2016-sc-769-case-summary\/\">Prakash v. Phulavati (2015)<\/a><\/em>. 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.\u00a0<\/span><\/p><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judgment_of_Vineeta_Sharma_v_Rakesh_Sharma\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Judgment of Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma\u00a0<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">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).<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">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 \u201cliving daughter of living coparcener\u201d was also rejected. Even if the father had died before 2005, the daughter\u2019s right to coparcenary property would still be valid.\u00a0 However, partitions completed before December 20, 2004, under valid legal procedures, would not be reopened.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">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 <a href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/prakash-vs-phulavati-air-2016-sc-769-case-summary\/\"><em>Prakash v. Phulvati (2015)<\/em><\/a> and settled the law in favor of the daughter&#8217;s right to inheritance.\u00a0<\/span><\/p><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Read_the_Judgment_Below\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><strong>Read the Judgment Below<\/strong><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-ad13ebd elementor-widget elementor-widget-pdfjs-viewer\" data-id=\"ad13ebd\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"pdfjs-viewer.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<iframe width=\"\" height=\"700\" src=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/plugins\/pdfjs-viewer-for-elementor\/\/assets\/js\/pdfjs\/web\/viewer.html?file=https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/Vineeta-Sharma-_-Rakesh-Sharma-Ors._1700823168-1.pdf\"><\/iframe>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>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\u2019s coparcenary rights<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":4834,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4],"tags":[110,121,108,109,111,107,12],"class_list":["post-4830","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-family-law","tag-daughters-coparcenary-rights","tag-family-law-ii","tag-hindu-succession-act-1956","tag-hindu-undivided-family","tag-mitakshara-law-of-succession","tag-section-6","tag-supreme-court"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4830","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4830"}],"version-history":[{"count":12,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4830\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4949,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4830\/revisions\/4949"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4834"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4830"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4830"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4830"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}