Yesterday Supreme Court of India (SC) in a landmark judgement gave equal inheritance right to daughters from 1956. The provision contained in Hindu succession Act 1956, in section 6 it did not mention the inheritance rights of women. SC in 2005 substituted section 6 of the Act, confer status of coparcener(equal rights in inheritance) on the daughter born or after the amendment in the same manner as son with same rights and liabilities. The rights can be claimed by daughter born earlier with effect from September 9, 2005. But here one thing was not cleared, what happens when a person ‘s property has already been inherited by others (spouse and sons) before this date and secondly it was also not cleared whether this act will be applicable to daughters born after this date. Yesterday Judgement has clarified that matter, and now daughters are also entitled for inheritance from 1956. That means if a person has died in the period after 1956 and Sept 8, 2005, then his daughter is also entitled for equal share in his property.SC further added that “ The classic Shastric law excluded the daughter from being a coparcener, this injustice has now been done away with by amending the provisions in Consonance(in agreement) with spirit of constitution. The goal of gender justice, as constitutionally envisaged, is achieved, though belatedly.”. The rights of other relatives to remain unaffected as prevailed in the provisio to sec 6 before the amendment. It is only a case of enlargement of daughter’s right.
However daughters while claiming coparcenary rights, will not be liable to question disposal or alienation of ancestral properties by the existing coparceners prior to December 2004, as provided by section 6. The three judge bench also examined the retrospective application of section 6 and ruled that daughters would get the rights from 1956, when the law came into being. However, it clarified that newly conferred rights through the judicial interpretations would not be available to re open alienation on ancestral property done so earlier through existing coparceners.
One of the judges commented that “ A son is a son until he gets a wife. A daughter is daughter throughout her life.” He further added That coparcenary was a birthright of daughters. Now if daughters had a birthright, it would be incongruous ( strange and out of place) to constrain it with the condition that right, that her father must be alive. As the right is by birth and not by dint(stroke) of inheritance, it is irrelevant that coparcener, whose daughter is conferred with rights, is alive or not. The apex court has clearly settled the issue on the effective date of 2005 amendment, by laying no relevance on the date of birth of daughter or alternatively date of death of father, prior to 2005 amendment or post. So as long as the daughter is alive post she has an equal right as son in ccoparcenary property.
This judgement has settled the ambiguity surrounding the nature and extent of daughter’s right in HUF property and thus settled a disputed question of law. This clarification was vital in setting aside the grip on previous decisions accorded coparcenary rights to daughters only if both father and daughter were alive as on 9th Sept 2005, when the amendment was notified.
Finally it is crystallised the law with respect to rights of women as coparcenere and removing the inequality under succession laws that had been prevalent historically. A huge number of cases are/were grappling with this issue and hopefully they will be cleared in fast manner. One thing which has still to be clarified that whether the descendants of daughters can claim their mother’s right now.. In general terms you can say that whether the lineal descendants of daughters partake the same rights as descendants of son.
In the end many of our ancestors who did not believe in this equality and never imagined that law will change to this effect one day, might be turning in their grave.
In my opinion , this is good development for gender equality, but will certainly open a Pandora box and unimaginable issues, more so now as this is now retrospective.
Waiting for your feed backs/views/comments
Anil Malik
Mumbai, India
12th August 2020
R. N. Mungale.
Good judgement.
Vasanth Chandra
Judgement might have settled the issue of law but has complicated delivery of justice by introducing retrospective clause.
The judgement has ignored traditions .
Usually in most Indian communities ,marraige is a mega expense & is borne by girl’s side . So too , mother’s gold is given out disproportionately to girls . There may be many others too . All with a view that girls are not entitled to inheritance .
Need a comprehensive guidelines & not piecemeal rulings .