Even if daughters were born prior to 2005 Amendment to Hindu Succession Act, 1956, they have equal coparcenary rights in Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) properties. A three-judge bench of Justices Arun Mishra, S Abdul Nazeer and MR Shah passed the verdict in appeals raising the issue of whether the amendment of the Act granting equal rights to daughters to inherit ancestral property would have retrospective effect. Justice Mishra says, “Daughters have to be given equal share of coparcenary rights in share of property like the son”.
The issue that was 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 alike the son. It was whether a daughter born prior to the enactment of the Act will be denied her share or not be treated as a coparcener. The lead case was a challenge to the decision of the Delhi High Court which highlighted the difference in opinion between benches of the Supreme Court.
In the current case, the Delhi High Court granted a certificate of fitness to appeal having regard to the fact that there are conflicting decisions of the Supreme Court in Prakash v. Phulavati, Danamma Suman Surpur v. Amar, and Mangammal v. TB Raju. In Prakash v. Phulavati, the Supreme Court had held that “The rights under the amendment are applicable to living daughters of living coparceners as on 9-9-2005 irrespective of when such daughters are born”. In other words, if the coparcener (father) had passed away prior to September 9, 2005 (date on which the amendment came into effect), the living daughter of the coparcener would have no right to coparcenary property.
In Danamma v. Amar, the Supreme Court had held that the amendment confers upon the daughter the status of a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son. Thus, it confers equal rights and liabilities in the coparcener properties to daughters and sons. In November 2018, a three-judge bench headed by Justice AK Sikri had noted that the matter needed to be heard by a three-judge bench. Today, the Court held that the appellant would have had coparcenary rights in the property even though her father had passed before the enactment of the amendment.
