Daughters’ Equal Rights to Coparcenary Property: An introduction into the decision of the Supreme Court

Must Read

Explained: The Right to be Forgotten in India

Right to Privacy is an essential fundamental right which has been enshrined in the Indian Constitution under Article 21...

How will the New WhatsApp Privacy Policy Affect Us?

On January 4, 2020, the California based tech giant WhatsApp announced its new privacy law. It allows data integration...

India’s International ‘Retrospective Taxation’ Regime Vis-a-Vis PCA Rulings in Vodafone and Cairn in 2020

The imposition of retrospective taxation of foreign companies doing business in India has been at the helm of controversy...

What is the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016?

The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA”) is an Act of the Parliament. It seeks to protect...

Should the Exorbitant Amounts Charged for RT-PCR Tests be Refunded?

Introduction A plea has been filed in the Honourable Supreme Court of India seeking a refund of exorbitant amounts charged...

Should CCTV’s be Installed in the Police Station?

Introduction In a recent judgment, the bench led by Justice Nariman issued directions to both the state and Union Territory...

Follow us

On August 11, the Supreme Court affirmed the right of the daughter to her share in coparcenary property. This right was held to be enforceable irrespective of the fact as to whether the coparcener’s father was alive during the passing of the 2005 Amendment.

Introduction of the Matter to the Supreme Court 

The matter was brought before the Supreme Court as a result of contracting judgements passed by separate benches of the Apex Court in previous judgements. Several High Courts have adjudicated upon matters under the same, and finally, the matter was referred to the Apex Court. The judgements were passed in the following cases: 

Prakash v. Phulavati 

In this matter, the dispute was regarding the share of the daughter in the coparcenary property. The plaintiff sought a share in the coparcenary property equal to the share of her brothers. The contention was that the daughter is entitled to a share in the self-acquired property of her father. The contention of the defendants, on the other hand, was that the daughter would not be entitled to any share in the property under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. The Defendants claimed that the 2005 Amendment would not be applicable in this matter as the father had passed away before the 2005 Amendment was enforced. The Apex Court held that in order for the 2005 Amendment to be applicable, the father must be alive at the time of the Amendment. Hence, the Plaintiff was not entitled to a share in the property. 

Danamma v. Amar

A petition was filed by two daughters for a share in their father’s property which was being divided equally between his widow and two sons. The contention of the Respondent was that the 2005 Amendment will not apply to the two daughters as they were born before the Amendment and that the father had died before the year 2005. The Apex Court in this matter held that the right of the coparcener starts to exist on the very birth of the coparcener and that the 2005 Amendment can be applied retrospectively. 

Judgement passed by the Apex Court 

The matter was referred to a three-Judge bench of Justices Arun Mishra, Abdul Nazeer and MR Shah. It was observed by the bench that

The provisions contained in substituted section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confer the status of coparcener on the daughter born before or after amendment in the same manner as a son with same rights and liabilities.”

The Supreme Court held that the right to coparcenary property as provided by the 2005 Amendment is based on birth. Hence, the right exists irrespective of the timeline. The Court held that the date and time of the father’s death are not relevant to determine the rights of the daughter. The Judgement is considered to be a landmark judgement. The judgement brought about equality in the matters of family property and provided that the same rights to the daughters of the family as has been enjoyed by the sons since the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 

Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005

The Amendment Act was enforced on September 5, 2005. The Act omitted Section 4 and amended Section 6. While amending Section 6, the Amendment Act sought to include daughters as coparcenary and sought to provide the same rights to daughters as was provided to sons. It states that a daughter will have the same rights as coparceners from the time of their birth. 

The Amendment, as provided by Act of 2005, is to be applied retrospectively. In other words, the act shall apply irrespective of the timeline of the birth of the daughters.  The Amendment Act was considered to be a historical move in order to bring about equality and discourage any form of discrimination. 


The Judgement passed by the Supreme Court eliminates any of the contradiction in earlier judgements. The matter of the application of the 2005 Amendment has been under consideration of all the courts and parties to disputes often alter the interpretation of the Amendment to their own benefit. Hence, the amendment gave way to arbitrariness and confusion. The decision of the Supreme Court ensures uniformity in the application of the same and has paved the way for a just and fair decision and safeguards the rights of the female coparceners in the family.

Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments of the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Supreme Court Stays Bombay HC Judgment which said Groping without Skin Contact Not Sexual Assault under POCSO

The National Commission for Women (NCW) has challenged the Bombay High Court judgment where it stated that groping a child’s breasts without any ‘skin-to-skin’ contact will not be considered as sexual assault as defined under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

Supreme Court Classifying Employees Based on Educational Qualifications for Promotion or Appointment Is Neither Violative of Article 14 nor of Article 16

This case concerns the dispute relating to the classification of employees belonging to the homogenous group based on educational qualifications. Brief facts of the case The...

Supreme Court Refuses To Transfer Petitions To Itself Related To ‘Love Jihad’ Filed in Allahabad High Court

On Monday, the Supreme Court refused to entertain the plea which was filed by the UP Government regarding the transfer of all the pleas challenging the ordinance the court passed, from Allahabad High Court to the Supreme Court.

Bombay HC Nagpur Bench Holds That Groping a Girl Without ‘Skin To Skin’ Contact Is Not Sexual Assault

The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court acquitted a man charged under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) and convicted him of a minor offence under IPC stating that there was no direct physical contact.

Delhi High Court Restrains Publication of Book on “the Ryan School Murder”

The Order had come in an injunction application filed by the St. Xavier's Education Trust in Delhi. The Plaintiff sought ad-interim restraining order on...

Supreme Court Closed Proceeding in Case of “in Re: Advocate on Record Includes a Proprietary Firm Etc.”

Brief facts of the case Emails from the Petitioner resulted in an administrative decision. An Order of the Supreme Court has drawn up the issue...

Supreme Court To Hear Female Army Officers Plea on Non-Implementation of the Permanent Commission

Claiming that its order granting Permanent Commission to women in the army’s non-combat support units on par with the male counterparts was not implemented well, many Women Army officers have approached the Supreme Court.

Calcutta High Court Rejects the Petition Challenging the Bid’s Rejection Filed on Seeking Condonation of Delay Due to Pandemic Interventions in Absence of Satisfactory...

Case: Shiba Prosad Banerjee vs The State of West Bengal and others The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya of Calcutta High Court on 22nd January...

Calcutta High Court Reiterated the Scope of the Grounds for Exercising Its Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction.

Case: Shreya Beria vs Vedant Bhagat The Calcutta HC on 20th January 2021, dismissed the criminal revision filed by the Petitioners (wife) challenging the...

Calcutta High Court: Deceased’s Wife Has the Sole Right Over His Preserved Sperm; Father Doesn’t Have Any Fundamental Right Over Son’s Progeny Without the...

Case: Asok Kumar Chatterjee vs. The Union of India & Ors. The Calcutta High Court dismissed the petition by the Petitioner (father) on 19th...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -