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

Must Read

An Insight into Custodial Death in India

“The occurrence of Custodial deaths in the world’s greatest democracy has raised the eyebrows of every citizen and shaken...

Implications in Travel Insurance in Light of the COVID-19 Crisis

As the world, today is crippled by this once in a century pandemic and as of date more than...

Second-Round Effects of Rent Control Laws: The Argentine Case

Introduction In colonial India, a city had an issue with its cobra population, which was a problem clearly in need...

Why Are the Big Techs of Silicon Valley Accused of Anti-Competitive Behaviours?

The big tech giants of the Silicon Valley are facing major challenges with relation to their monopolistic powers after...

KSK announces Sanjay Kumar as a Partner for Pharma & Life Sciences Practice

New Partner for KSK's Pharma & Life Sciences Practice King Stubb & Kasiva recently announced that Mr Sanjay Kumar has...

The Debate Between IPR and Competition Law Explained

There are various market processes or structures that govern market scenario. For simplicity, this paper focuses on two mechanisms:...

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

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA). It prayed that severe restrictions...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -