Guwahati: The Supreme Court today held that daughters would have equal coparcenery rights in Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) properties even if they were not alive at the time of the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. (Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma).
In effect, the Court has ruled that the 2005 amendment would have retrospective effect in conferring rights on daughters who were alive at the time of the amendment, even if they were born prior to it.
Recognizing the importance of conferring equal rights on daughters and sons, Justice Mishra, while reading out the operative part of the judgment said,
“Daughters have to be given equal share of coparcenary rights in share of property like the son.”
The court recognised that just like sons, the amendment also extended the status of the coparcener to a daughter, allowing her to enjoy the same rights as a son.
The issue raised before the Supreme Court was whether with the passing of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, a daughter of a coparcener shall by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son. In other words, whether a daughter could be denied her share on the ground that she were born prior to the enactment of the Act and, therefore, cannot be treated as coparcener?
The lead case in this batch of appeals was a challenge to the decision of the Delhi High Court which highlighted the difference in opinion between benches of the Supreme Court.
Today, the Court finally held that the appellant would have had coparcenery rights in the property even though her father had passed before the enactment of the amendment.
