Petitioner: Vineeta Sharma
Appellant: Rakesh Sharma
Date of Case: 11 August, 2020
Bench: Justice Arun Mishra, Justice M. R. Shah and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer
Equivalent citations: AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 3717, AIRONLINE 2020 SC 676
Facts
- This case is related to the ancestral property of Shri Dev Dutt Sharma. He passed away in 1999 without leaving a will.
- He left behind his wife, three sons and a daughter, Vineeta Sharma who is the appellant in this case.
- One unmarried son also passed away in 200, leaving behind a total of 4 family members
- Vineeta Sharma filed a suit, claiming her 1/4th share in the property against her family members, as given to her by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
- However, her claim was opposed by her brothers Rakesh Sharma, Satyendra Sharma and mother, who are the respondents in this case. They claimed that upon marriage, Vineeta ceased to be part of the joint family. Also, since Shri Dev Dutt Sharma died in 1999, which was before the amendment was passed, it would not apply to this case.
- The Trial Court rejected the appellant’s claim and sided with the respondents, stating that the 2005 amendment would not apply.
- Aggrieved by the Trial Court’s decision, she appealed to the Delhi High Court. The HC upheld the decision of the Trial Court and relied on past precedents to reject her appeal.
- An appeal was then filed by Vineeta Sharma in the Supreme Court to resolve the matter.
Issues Raised
1. Whether the daughter can claim her coparcenary rights (as applicable by the 2005 Amendment) even if the death of her father occurred before 2005, which means before the amendment?
2. Whether the nature of the amendment of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1965 is retrospective, prospective or retroactive?
Contention
Arguments by Appellant
- They argued that the act should apply retrospectively otherwise, it would fail to achieve its objective, leading to discrimination against women. The requirement for both the father(original coparcener) and daughter to be alive, goes against the ideal of gender justice and equality as there is no such restriction on sons inheriting the ancestral property.
- Coparcenary rights are granted to daughters by birth, which creates an inherent interest and adoption can be the only exception to this principle.
- If a partition has already been executed, daughters cannot claim a right in that property.
Arguments of the Respondent
- They argued that the Act must be seen to have prospective application.
- They relied on the precedent set by the the case of Prakash & Ors. v. Phulvati & Ors in which the court had held that both the father and the daughter must be alive on the date of the commencement of the amendment in order for them to be applicable for the same.
- The council argued that the aim behind statutory partition is the determination of shares that the family members will get and after determination of these shares, the property becomes self-acquired therefore, any past transactions should remain unaffected by the amendment of section 6 of the HSA, 1956.
Due to the importance of the issues surrounding this case, the SC took the help of the government along with appointing an amicus curiae, both of which gave their arguments on the same.
Arguments by Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf the Government of India
- Looking at the exact wording of section 6, it states ‘daughter of a coparcener’ which cannot under any circumstance be interpreted to mean – daughter of a living coparcener.
- In the case of Prakash & Ors. v. Phulvati & Ors, the requirement of the father and daughter to be alive goes against the very basis of the term ‘coparcener by birth’.
- Coparcenary rights are accrued at birth and cannot be taken away on such basis.
- The right may not be retrospective, however it is retroactive. This means that the coparcenary right conferred upon the daughter because of the 2005 Amendment did not interfere or affect any rights given by way of a partition that got crystallized before 20th December 2004.
- While interpretation of laws, the intention of such law must be kept in mind. The intention of the 2005 Amendment was equality in inheritance of ancestral property. Daughters were given the same rights, liabilities, and statues as those of sons in a Hindu Joint Family.
Arguments of amicus curiae
- They clarified that there is no direct conflict between the rulings in Prakash & Ors. v. Phulvati & Ors and Danamma @ Suman Surpur & Anr. v. Amar & Ors., as both decisions hold Section 6 of the HSA, 1956 as having a prospective application.
- They highlighted that for the amended provision to be applicable, a living coparcener must be alive at the time of the amendment. If the coparcener himself is not alive at the time the right was given, a daughter would not possess any coparcenary interest to inherit or claim.
- The timing of a daughter’s birth prior to the amendment is irrelevant to the legal context, as the amendment does not apply retrospectively.
- Acknowledging daughters as coparceners prior to the 2005 amendment would create significant legal uncertainty and disturb the established understanding of succession law.
Rationale
In order to understand the ratio decidendi in this case, we must understand the historical context surrounding the issue. In the case of Prakash & Ors. v. Phulvati & Ors, the Supreme Court held that section 6 of the Act has prospective application, which means that coparcenary rights will only be given to the living daughter of a living coparcener as of September 9, 2005. This ruling implies that for a daughter to benefit from coparcenary rights, both she and her father must be alive on this specified date. However, another judgement was given by the Supreme Court in 2018 which creates confusion as it was contradictory in nature. In Danamma @ Suman Surpur & Anr. v. Amar & Ors., the Supreme Court upheld the ratio of the Phulvati ruling, however, the substance of its ruling was entirely different. In this case, the coparcener had died in 2001. If the ratio of the previous case was upheld, it means the daughters would not get coparcenary rights because the original coparcener is not alive on September 9, 2005. Despite this, the Court granted the daughters coparcenary rights in the property. This indicates that daughters born before the 2005 amendment are recognized as coparceners within the joint family property and possess the right to claim their share, even in cases where the father had passed away prior to the Amendment.
This obviously created ambiguity in interpreting section 6 and so a three judge bench consisting of Justice Arun Mishra, M. R. Shah and S. Abdul Nazeer in this case overturned Phulavati’s ratio and partially overturned Danamma’s ratio. The Court held that the objective of the act was to confer equal status to daughters and sons with regard to ancestral property. To remedy the discrimination against women and bring gender justice in inheritance laws while upholding constitutional values given in Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution, it is necessary to interpret the Amendment as being retroactive, not retrospective or prospective. The law works based on the characteristics of a past event or requirement that had been drawn from the antecedent event. It is immaterial whether the father of the daughter was alive or dead on 9th September 2005 because the right is obtained at birth. It was also held that if the daughter is not alive on the date of the enactment of the amendment, her right does not disappear but passes down to her legal heirs. However, provisions operate concerning claims on and from the date of the Amendment Act.
Defects of Law
While it is true that Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma is a landmark case, that paves the way for many women to have an equal status in inheritance, we must realise that the intended amendment was passed in 2005, however the issue has only been resolved in 2020. A gap of 15 years was required to realise the true objective of the Act.
We must also note that there is a limitation in this judgement when it comes to applicability. The ruling pertains to the domain of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property governed under the Mitakshara school of Hindu law only. It does not include self-acquired property.
Considering the contemporary implications of this, it must be notes that the concept of joint families is becoming obsolete. The majority of disputes related to inheritance now are concerned with self -acquired property, for which inclusion has not been given through this judgement. However, the problem still persists because in Hindu Succession Act, 1956 there is still disparity in the way the male and female property is devolved for self-acquired property.
Another consideration would be the strong influence of patriarchal values which significantly restricts the enforcement of these rights. Even when they are legally entitled, many daughters are pressured or bullied to give them up. This is due to societal expectations, family opposition, or just the lack of awareness surrounding legal rights. This issue is particularly prevalent to rural areas, patriarchal norms are present in inheritance related issues. Social exclusion often discourages women from not pursuing their rights. The structural and cultural obstacles that restrict women’s access to property in reality have not been given any recognition in the judgement.
Inference
In Indian jurisprudence, the rights affecting women’s inheritance have always been a point of contention. Historically women have been discriminated against to the extent that they have not even been considered Class-1 heirs in their own family. However after much needed reform, the 2005 Amendment was implemented which intended to bring about equality and gender justice in the realm of inheritance laws. The whole objective of the amendment was to uphold the constitutional values enshrined in articles 14- equality before law and Article 15- prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste ,sex or place of birth. However, due to inaccurate interpretation of the law in cases like Phulawati and Danamma, the object of the act was disregarded. When the law provided that coparcenary status will be given to daughters as par with sons, it meant the right was given by way of birth. However, these cases created confusion and did not uphold the spirit of the law. Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma is an essential case because it rectifies that error and provides an expansive and comprehensive understanding of the intent of the legislation rather than blindly following the letter of the law. The interpretation of the Court in ruling this act as retroactive shows us the progressive path taken as it allows for all daughters in a HUF to become coparceners. This reaffirms the goal of empowering women. However, by allowing enforceability to be made post-amendment, it protects the right of those who completed partition formally through a registered deed. This case is not just a victory for one single women, but a milestone for substantive equal rights in family law.
AARSHI MANAN
O.P JINDAL GLOBAL UNIVERSITY