VINEETA SHARMA versus RAKESH SHARMA & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 10 S.C.R. 135 · Decided: 11-08-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Directions issued

Cited by 10 judgment(s) · cites 42 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
135
VINEETA SHARMA
v.
RAKESH SHARMA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. Diary No.32601 of 2018)
AUGUST 11, 2020
[ARUN MISHRA, S.ABDUL NAZEER AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – s.6 as amended by Hindu
Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 – Interpretation of – Held: The
provisions contained in substituted s.6 of the Hindu Succession Act,
1956 confer status of coparcener on the daughter born before or
after amendment in the same manner as son with same rights and
liabilities – The effect of the amendment is that a daughter is made
coparcener, with effect from the date of amendment i.e. 09.09.2005
and she can claim partition also, which is a necessary concomitant
of the coparcenary – s.6(1) recognises a Joint Hindu family
governed by Mitakshara law – The coparcenary must exist on
09.09.2005 to enable the daughter of a  coparcener to enjoy rights
conferred on her – As the right is by birth and not by dint of
inheritance, it is irrelevant that a coparcener whose daughter is
conferred with the rights is alive or not – Conferral is not based on
death of a father or other Coparcener – In case living coparcener
dies after 09.09.2005, inheritance is not by survivorship but by
intestate or testamentary succession as provided in substituted
s.6(3).
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – s.6 as amended by Hindu
Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 and proviso to s.6 as originally
enacted – Held: The statutory fiction of partition created by proviso
to s.6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as originally enacted did
not bring about the actual partition or disruption of coparcenary –
The fiction was only for the purpose of ascertaining share of
deceased coparcener when he was survived by a female heir, of
class-I as specified in the Schedule to the Act of 1956 or male relative
of such female – The provisions of the substituted s.6 are required
to be given full effect – Notwithstanding, that a preliminary decree
has been passed the daughters are to be given share in coparcenary
equal to that of a son in pending proceedings for final decree or in
an appeal.
[2020] 10 S.C.R. 135
135
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
136
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 10 S.C.R.
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – s.6 as amended by Hindu
Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 – Explanation to s.6(5) – Plea
of oral partition – Held: In view of the rigor of provisions of
Explanation to s.6(5) of the Act of 1956, a plea of oral partition
cannot be accepted as the statutory recognised mode of partition
effected by a deed of partition fully registered under the provisions
of the Registration Act, 1908 or effected by a decree of a Court –
However, in exceptional cases where plea of oral partition is
supported by public documents and partition is finally evinced in
the same manner as if it had been affected by a decree of a Court,
it may be accepted – A plea of partition based on oral evidence
alone cannot be accepted and to be rejected outrightly.
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – s.6 as amended by Hindu
Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 – Enlargement of daughter’s
rights – Held: Under the proviso to s.6 before the amendment made
in the year 2005 in case a coparcener died leaving behind female
relative of class-I heir or a male descendant claiming through such
class-I female heir, the daughter was one of them – s.6, as substituted,
presupposes the existence of coparcenary – It is only the case of
the enlargement of the rights of the daughters – The rights of other
relatives remain unaffected as prevailed in the proviso to s.6 as it
stood before amendment – The classic shastric Hindu Law excluded
the daughter from being coparcener, which injustice has now been
done away with by amending the provisions in consonance with the
spirit of the Constitution.
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – s.6 as amended by Hindu
Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 – Retroactive application – Held:
Though the rights can be claimed, w.e.f. 09.09.2005, the provisions
are of retroactive application; they confer benefits based on the
antecedent event, and the Mitakshara coparcenary law shall be
deemed to include a reference to a daughter as a coparcener – A
retroactive statute is the one that does not operate retrospectively –
It operates in futuro – However, its operation is based upon the
character or status that arose earlier – Characteristic or event which
happened in the past or requisites which had been drawn from
antecedent events – Under the amended s.6, since the right is given
by birth, that is an antecedent event, and th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.