A Legal Overview of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma

AUTHOR: Prateek Bal, SOA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF LAW, SOA UNIVERSITY

Case Title: Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma

Year:2020

Citation: AIR 2020 SC 3717

Court: Supreme Court of India

This case is focused upon the idea behind the unified ownership rights of females and the Hindu household, which are crucial elements in this case. While inheritance rules across most of India were predominantly governed by the outdated Mitakshara system, there were exceptions in certain areas of West Bengal and Assam. ‘This landscape changed significantly Following the passage of the Hindu Succession Act in 1956. In particular, Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 deals with the survivorship concept and the division of property after the death of a Hindu male.

In previous times, daughters were only allowed to inherit property directly from their fathers and could not inherit ancestral property from the joint Hindu family. Additionally, they did not have coparcenary rights. ‘However, The Hindu Succession Act modification of 2005 granted females the right of coparcenary from birth, ensuring that they have the same inheritance rights as sons.

The goal of the law was to redress the detrimental effects of previous discrimination; yet, there have been notable disparities in its application. The question of whether this step's consequences are intended to be retroactive or prospective, as well as whether it would reverse established modifications, is crucially raised. ‘Even though the Supreme Court has already considered these matters, various decisions have led to divergent interpretations. This ongoing dispute is intended to be definitively resolved by the August 11, 2020, ruling on the issue in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma.’.

Daughters now possess the same full coparcenary rights as males under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, as modified, enacted in November 9, 2005. According to Section 6(1)(a), daughters are born with coparcenary rights, establishing their equal rights in inheritance matters. This raises an important question: daughters born before 2005 are unequivocally eligible for these coparcenary rights. Furthermore, it is essential to clarify that the amended section's contents are applicable notwithstanding whether both of father and daughter are alive as of November 9, 2005.

The case of Prakash & Ors. v. Phulvati & Ors. Dealt with significant legal issues surrounding coparcenary rights. The Supreme Court determined that a particular provision of the amendment would take effect prospectively. In essence, coparcenary rights would only be conferred upon daughters who were alive as of November 9, 2005, and this was contingent upon the presence of a living coparcener at that time.

In contrast, Gurunalingapa, a coparcener considers this particular situation of Danamma @ Suman Surpur & Anr. v. Amar & Ors., passed away on 2001, leaving behind his wife and his four children. The legal system allocated one-fifth of his estate to each of the widows, sons, and daughters, as the father wasn’t living amended Section 6 came into effect. This ruling lightened a legal dispute, as it was inconsistent with the previous decision.

Two judges from a divisional bench issued the prior rulings. In Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, A judicial panel consisting of three judges were constituted to effectively address the issues and provide a definitive meaning of Section 6 of the 2005 Hindu Succession Act, as modified.

Before September 9, 2005, the father of Vineeta and Rakesh Sharma is Mr. Dev Dutt Sharma., passed away. Vineeta Sharma, the appellant in this case, started a legal process against her relatives, which includes her brother as well as her brother Rakesh Sharma, who want a portion of their father's ancestor regions.  Delhi High Court determined that, under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 was amended in 2005., the appellant did not have possession of coparcenary rights and was thus ineligible to claim any property.

Subsequently, Vineeta Sharma the appellant in this case appealed this decision to the Honourable Apex Court of India, contesting the interpretation of the statute and the conflicting rulings issued through Apex court.

• Does Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 was amended in 2005., grant rights of coparceners to a daughter if her father died before September 9, 2005? 

• Can daughters born before the 2005 amendment assert their entitlement to coparcenary rights under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act? 

• Is the 2005 amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act retroactive, prospective, or retrospective?

  
  

High Court

In rejecting the petition, The High Court of Delhi declared that the benefits granted to daughters under Notably, the 2005 Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act apply in this case. ‘In light of the amended legislation, the court decided that the daughter could not prove her claim to coparcenary property because the father passed away before the amendment's passage’.

Supreme Court

The ruling has a big effect on Hindu Succession Act property rights. Nowadays, oral partitions are subject to stringent regulations that need substantial proof. Importantly, daughters now enjoy coparcenary rights from birth, a modification that was made retroactively. 

‘The amendment can be claimed prospectively even though it is retroactive. In current partition cases, daughters can also benefit from the 2005 modification. Notably, it has been made clear that the idea of a "notional partition" is a legal fiction used to calculate shares rather than a real division. The rights of daughters in coparcenary property are improved by these rulings. 

Just under being born into a Hindu joint family, the Supreme Court bench, which was composed of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer, M.R. Shah, and Hon. Justice Arun Mishra, decided that the authority to acquire the family estate belongs to all people. The daughter's birth confers the right to partition; therefore, Whether the coparcener or parent was alive or dead on the day the modification was made makes no difference took effect..Instead of being passed from a live the coparcener to a living daughter, coparcenary titles are passed from father to daughter., the court declared, overturning the decision in the Prakash v. Phulvati case.

The panel of three justices conclusively clarified the wording of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, concluding that they are retroactive rather than prospective or retrospective. Regardless of gender, the apex court adamantly maintained that regardless of whether the initial verdict have been given, the calculation of property shares may change., especially when a new family member is born or an existing one passes away. If a coparcener dies, the value of the remaining property portion will surely rise for the surviving coparceners, sons and daughters alike. On the other hand, the birth of a baby boy or girl will instantly reduce the share's value.

The notional split of property and the division of shares are not definitive in nature the court ruled. This is due to the possibility of a new coparcener being born or an existing coparcener passing away, which could alter the other coparceners' shares. The distinction between a conceptual and an actual division must be understood. If a split occurs before November 9, 2005, the coparcenary property remains intact. Thus, even though she is a minor, a daughter may be entitled to a portion of the joint family property.

In countries across the world, women have endured marginalisation, humiliation, and hardship for ages. Their rights and liberties have been restricted by discriminatory legislation and social conventions, which have hampered their potential and kept them in lower-status positions. Changes have recently taken place as a result of new legislation aimed at empowering women, questioning established conventions, and advancing gender equality.

Laws protecting women's property and inheritance rights have frequently been hampered by patriarchal customs that have historically denied women their full share, even though the Indian Constitution guarantees equality. However, societal shifts have enabled women to claim ownership, inherit family property, and achieve financial independence. As a result, society's perception and application of women's property rights have undergone substantial changes.

The purpose of the amendment is to further equality by prohibiting discrimination based on gender in succession affairs, particularly with regard to ancestral property rights. The Vineeta Sharma case provides insight and direction for resolving gender discrimination in future succession matters while also establishing a favourable legal precedent that upholds women's rights. This historic decision gives women a strong foundation on which to fight for justice and stand up for their rights in comparable circumstances.

1. Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Ors., (2020) 9 SCC 1, AIR 2020 SC 3717 (India).

2. Danamma @ Suman Surpur & Anr. v. Amar & Ors., (2018) 3 SCC 343 (India).

3. Prakash & Ors. v. Phulvati & Ors., (2016) 2 SCC 36 (India).

4. Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, No. 39 of 2005, § 6 (India).

5. India Const. art. 14. 

6. Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma; a case analysis, Legal Service India - Law, Lawyers and Legal Resources. Available at: https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-4710-vineeta-sharma-v-rakesh-sharma-an-case-analysis.html (Accessed: 13 November 2024).

7. Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, Delhi High Court, judgment, law, Casemine.com, Available at: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56090f1de4b014971117e104 (Accessed: 13 November 2024).

8. Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Ors., The Amikus Qriae (2023). Available at: https://theamikusqriae.com/vineeta-sharma-v-rakesh-sharma-ors/ (Accessed: 13 November 2024).

9. Supreme Court of India, Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, Judgment dated August 11, 2020, Available at: https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/32601/32601_2018_33_1501_23387_Judgement_11-Aug-2020.pdf (Accessed: 13 November 2024).