Do Daughters Have Equal Property Rights by Birth Under the Amended Section 6?
Supreme Court grants daughters equal share in family property, enforcing Hindu Succession Act amendment
Facts of the Case:
This case involves the partition of ancestral properties of Late Shri Kumar Sahoo between his legal heirs. The litigation originated with a suit for partition filed by Charulata Sahoo (Respondent No. 1) claiming a share in the ancestral properties. The trial court recognized her share and directed partition. Appeals followed, questioning the nature of the properties and the validity of a compromise settlement between some of the heirs.
Case of the Appellant:
The appellants, heirs of Defendant No. 1 (Late Prafulla Sahoo), argued that all properties were ancestral and disputed the trial court’s finding that certain properties were selfacquired by Late Kumar Sahoo.
Case of the Respondent:
The respondent (Charulata Sahoo) supported the trial court’s decision recognizing her share in the properties and opposed the compromise settlement as invalid, asserting her rights under the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Argument of the Appellant:
All properties were ancestral.
The trial court erred in recognizing certain properties as selfacquired.
The 2005 Amendment should not alter the rights already settled by the compromise.
Properties should be partitioned as per the original family settlement and ancestral nature.
Argument of the Respondent:
The trial court and High Court correctly identified her share.
The compromise settlement was invalid as it did not include her consent.
The 2005 Amendment conferred equal coparcenary rights, necessitating a reevaluation of shares.
Case Laws Cited by Appellant:
Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Others, (2020) 9 SCC 1: Discussed retroactive application of amended Section 6.
Bai Chanchal & Others v. Syed Jalaluddin & Others, (1970) 3 SCC 124: Referred for property rights.
Pushpa Devi Bhagat (Dead) through LR. Sadhna Rai (Smt) v. Rajinder Singh & Others, (2006) 5 SCC 566: Cited for compromise settlements.
Case Laws Cited by Respondent:
Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Others, (2020) 9 SCC 1: Affirmed daughter’s coparcenary rights.
Ganduri Koteshwaramma & Another v. Chakiri Yanadi & Another, (2011) 9 SCC 788: Explained the retrospective application of the amended Section 6.
Law Points:
- Section 6(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 gives daughters equal rights (Paragraph 67).
- Retrospective and retroactive statutes (Paragraph 66).
- Validity of settlement agreements under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC (Paragraph 103).
- Application of amended laws during ongoing proceedings (Paragraph 80).
- Rights of heirs under amended Section 6 (Paragraph 70).
- The amended Section 6 applies retroactively (Paragraph 65).
- The daughter’s coparcenary rights are by birth (Paragraph 67).
- Alienations prior to 20.12.2004 are protected (Paragraph 69).
- Compromise without all heirs’ consent is invalid (Paragraph 104).
- Preliminary decree can be modified in light of new legal provisions (Paragraph 81).
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to grant 1/3rd share to the daughters in all properties, affirming their coparcenary rights under the amended Hindu Succession Act, 2005, and invalidating the compromise settlement between some heirs.
General Point of View :
The court decided that daughters have equal rights to family property, invalidated an unfair settlement, and ordered the division of property accordingly.
The court ruled that daughters are entitled to a 1/3rd share in all properties, enforcing their rights under the amended law.
Expert Analysis on Legal Points and Propositions :
The amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act gives daughters equal rights to family property from birth, retroactively applying even if the father died before the amendment.
The law protects transactions before 20.12.2004 but applies new rights to current divisions, ensuring fairness in ongoing cases.
Discover how landmark legal principles shape everyday justice. Click the link to explore the full judgment!
Please read the full disclaimer. This Post is for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal advice. Always consult with a qualified legal professional for specific legal matters.
About Post Author
