In
a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that even if the father died
before the Hindu Succession Act 2005, a daughter would have the same right to
receive her share in the property. Justice Arun Mishra ruled that an important
legal issue was raised whether the 2005 Act, which gave equal rights to
daughters in paternal property, has retrospective effect?
Justice
Arun Mishra pronounced the verdict, saying, "Daughters should be given
equal rights as sons. A daughter remains a loving daughter throughout her life.
The
bench, comprising Justices Arun Mishra, S. Nazeer and M.R. Shah dismissed the
contrary remarks made in two cases of Prakash V/S Phoolwati and Mangammal V/S TB Raju.
Sameer
Jain, Founder and Managing Partner of PSL Advocates and Solicitors, says, “The
Supreme Court has corrected the pre-2005 disparity found in daughters in their
progressive decision in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma. The decision with an
emphasis is on uneven ground created by its previous conflicting decisions.
This essentially means that the Hindu Succession Act 2005, by which daughters
were given equal rights in a HUF property, is retrospective in nature i.e. it
does not matter that the father was alive on the date of the amendment.
Following the widely held earlier position that the daughter can claim rights
in the HUF only when her father is alive because the date of the amendment has
been terminated. "
He
goes on to say, "The issue has also been dealt with in relation to the
partition which came into effect in the past and it has been clarified that
only those divisions which have been effected by the Meet and the Seema, either
by decree Or otherwise remain unaffected. Daughters can claim their rights in
all other cases where the partition has not ended. "
The
court made the following comments:
1.
The provision referred to in section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956,
confers property rights on a daughter born before or after the amendment as a
son with the same rights and obligations.
2.
Rights can be claimed by a daughter born before 9.9.2005 as provided in Section
6 (1) as to the distribution or separation, partition or testament dispute
which occurred before the 20th day of December 2004 Was.
3.
Since the father's right to property is from birth, it is not necessary that
the father survives till 9.9.2005.
4.
The statutory presumption of partition made provisional by section 6 of the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as originally enacted, did not bring about the
actual division or dissolution of the legal right. Daughters should be given an
equal share of a son.
5.
Verbal segmentation cannot be accepted as a statutory recognized mode of
partition.
Nirav
Shah, partner, DSK Legal, explains, "Moving forward, families with HUF
will need to be very careful whenever they decide to enter a division or family
system. The document must clearly state the manner in which the distribution of
the family's property is done under division or family arrangement and a
daughter must be provided in the same manner as the son and the distribution
would have to be done equally."
The
court also held that it is clear from the provisions of section 6 that discrimination
against the daughter has been overcome, and that she has been provided equal
treatment in the case of inheritance in the case of father's property.
This
decision paves the way for daughters to claim rights in their father's property
before 2005 and treat sons equally.