VINEETHA SHARMA V. RAKESH SHARMA & OTHERS (2020) 9 SCC 1

Author: Madireddy Divitha Reddy, Christ Academy Institute of Law, Bengaluru, Affiliated to Karnataka State Law University, Hubballi.

Vinita Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma (2020) 9 SCC 1 is a historic decision in the Indian Family and Property Act of India's decision in SCC 1, which has long settled ambiguity about the rights of daughters under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, amended in the year of 2005. It led to the making of equal heritage and ancestral property amongst sons and daughters. The 2005 amendment sought to address this gender inequality by mentioning the same coparcenary rights on daughters, as enjoyed by sons. However, there were conflicting interpretations on judicial interpretations on whether the father had to survive at the time of the amendment. In Light vs. Phulwati (2016), the Supreme Court stated that until 9 September 2005 only the living daughters of the living father would be entitled to the rights, and on the contrary, in Danamma v. Amar (2018), the court recognized, when the father also died as a disorganization, the court recognized the daughters.

To solve this struggle, a bench of three judges led by Justice Arun Mishra in Vinita Sharma clarified that a daughter has this right from the birth itself. This decision not only established the law, but also strengthened the constitutional values of equality and gender justice. There are far-reaching implications in the decision, strengthening women's property rights and extending India's commitment to gender equality within the family structure

Parties Involved

Appellant: Vineeta Sharma, a daughter asserting her coparcenary rights in her father’s Hindu joint family property.

Respondents: Rakesh Sharma and other family members disputing her rights based on the father’s death before the 2005 amendment.

Mr. Dev Dutt Sharma, a deceased coparcener, left a widow, daughter and three sons after his death. His daughter, filed a suit, claiming 1/4th part in Coparcenary property. The family denied this claim, arguing that she could not be considered a coparcener and hence she has no right to family property. She also argued that she was married and no longer a member of the joint family. Vinita, along with her brothers, Rakesh Sharma and Satyendra Sharma, with her mother, sued her for commendable rights based on her birth in the family. The trial court denied the same shares in the property, and challenged the decision through the appeal of the Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court took the decision that Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 would not apply to the current situation as Vinita Sharma's father was not alive during the commencement of the amendment. The decision extended to the daughter, and appealed to the Supreme Court of India to reconsider the matter and reach a decision.

1. Does the 2005 amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act accept Coparcenary rights for daughters from birth or is the father's existence based on the existence of the father?

2. Does Prakash vs. Phulvati and Danamma vs. Amar require reconsideration of previously conflicting decisions?

The Supreme Court ruled that:

Daughters have coparcenery rights from birth, just like sons, and these rights aren’t dependent on whether the father was alive at the time of the 2005 amendment. The earlier judgment in Prakash v. Phulavati was overturned to the extent that it considered the father’s living status as relevant. The case of Danamma v. Amar was found to be partially inconsistent and was clarified as such. Daughters' coparcenary rights are like sons, and do not depend on the father's stay on 9 September 2005. The 2005 Amendment is rebel wide: it is not finally divided (the amendment bill was introduced) before 20 December 2004) but ensures that daughters have equal rights to maintain coparceners. The separation and partitions made before 20 December 2004 are unaffected to protect the interests of third parties.

Majority Opinion (Justice Arun Mishra) (writing for the bench) insisted:

Nature of Coparcenary Rights: A Coparcener attains authority from the birth. The amendment only made it clear that daughters, like sons, are coparceners from birth .

Statutory interpretation: The Legislature intends to remove gender discrimination in the Mitakshara Coparcenary system, a step in line with the constitutional vision of equality.

Conflict resolution: Prakash vs. Phulvati (the need for father's existence) was considered wrong, while Danamma vs Amar was partially confirmed but clarified.

Primal vs. retrospective: The court is distinguished between purely rebuilt laws (changing the rights vested) and the retrospective laws (who influence future rights based on existing facts). The amendment was considered retrospective.

Concurrent view

There was no disagreement, ensuring clarity on the interpretation of section 6.

The decision decisively resolved a long -standing explanatory conflict, ensuring the same application of Section 6 nationwide. it: 2005 amendments after simplified heritage disputes

• Daughters recognized as equal stakeholders in ancestral property

• Testing courts directed to handle the pending partition suit accordingly

  
  

Social and political influence

A decision leads to gender equality within family structures. Historically, the Hindu Joint Family Law was patriarchal, which excluded women from equal rights in ancestral property. By ensuring the rights of daughters from birth, it challenges patriarchal property norms

Aligned Hindu laws with equality and constitutional principles of international conferences, which include CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women).

This decision has been discussed in leading academic magazines as a watershed moment in personal law reform. It also strengthens the case for the same-sex-platted property laws, a step close to the instructions envisaged under Article 44.

A. Important evaluation

The interpretation of the Supreme Court is progressive and constitutionally sound. This ends discriminatory interpretations by protecting the property rights contained through its cut-off date of 20 December 2004. Announcing that the daughter's right is "uninterrupted and birth", the court aligns personal law with fundamental rights.

However, some challenges remain:

Implementation Complexity: The courts are now tasked to reopen several pending partition suits, which can put a burden on the judiciary.

Awareness Difference:

• Many women are unaware of their Coparcenary rights, limiting practical enforcement.

• Requirement of uniform law: While the property rights of women of other religious communities lack equality, the uniform civil code highlighted the need for discussion.

B. Alternative Results

If the court had retained Prakash vs. Phulvati, discrimination would have continued, which prohibited the rights of daughters based on the lucky situation of father's existence. Such a stance would have struggled with the constitutional principle of amendment of 2005 amendments and equality.

Vinita Sharma's decision stands as a historical example in ensuring gender equality in Hindu succession law. Explaining that a daughter's right to coparcenery property is uninterrupted and by birth, the Supreme Court has established the property law with constitutional values. The decision:

• Opposes judicial examples

• Strengthens women's property rights

• Gender carries out India's commitment to justice and equality

Family laws in India will continue to influence litigation, educational discourse, and future legislative reforms in the ruling.

• Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 6 (as amended in 2005)

• Prakash v. Phulavati (2016) 2 SCC 36 (overruled in part)

• Danamma v. Amar (2018) 3 SCC 343 (clarified)

• Ganduri Koteshwaramma v. Chakiri Yanadi (2011) 9 SCC 788 (basis for retroactivity principle)