Summary
Amended Section 6 gives daughters born before or after the amendment coparcenary status by birth, with the same rights and liabilities as sons. Earlier-born daughters can claim those rights from 9 September 2005; the father need not then have been alive. Protected transactions before 20 December 2004 remain saved. A notional partition did not dissolve the coparcenary, and preliminary decrees do not prevent recognition of daughters’ rights in pending proceedings. Oral partition requires exceptional, conclusive documentary support. The reference was answered and individual matters left for decision on merits.
Issues
- Whether a daughter’s coparcenary rights depend on her father being alive on 9 September 2005.
- How notional partition and preliminary decrees affect the amended rights.
- When an alleged earlier partition can defeat a daughter’s claim.
Provisions considered
- Section 6, as substituted in 2005, Hindu Succession Act, 1956Conferred equal coparcenary rights by birth, preserved specified earlier transactions and imposed stringent requirements concerning partition. (¶¶ 46, 55, 63, 64, 126, 127, 128, 129)
Held
- The daughter becomes a coparcener by birth in the same manner as a son, with equal rights and liabilities. For daughters born earlier, rights are claimable from 9 September 2005. Because the right arises by birth rather than inheritance on the father’s death, he need not have been alive on that date; the statutory scheme presupposes the relevant coparcenary’s existence. (¶¶ 44, 55, 56, 63, 64, 75, 106, 129)
- The amendment is retroactive in the stated sense of conferring rights from commencement on the basis of the antecedent event of birth. Dispositions or alienations, including partition or testamentary dispositions, before 20 December 2004 remain protected as provided by the statute. Married daughters are not excluded by the substituted provision. (¶¶ 51, 55, 56, 63, 71, 72, 76, 129)
- The original Section 6 fiction ascertained the deceased coparcener’s share without itself effecting actual partition or disrupting the coparcenary. A preliminary decree does not conclude a partition suit; intervening statutory rights must be recognised in pending final-decree proceedings or appeals, including by appropriate revision of shares. (¶¶ 66, 83, 90, 91, 92, 96, 97, 99, 100, 101, 106, 128, 129)
- Section 6(5) ordinarily recognises partition by registered deed or court decree effecting actual partition. An oral plea unsupported by contemporaneous public documents must be rejected. Only exceptional cases conclusively supported by cogent public documentary evidence of a completed partition comparable to one effected by decree may be accepted; oral testimony alone is insufficient. (¶¶ 116, 120, 126, 127, 128, 129)
- Contrary views in Prakash v. Phulavati and Mangammal were overruled; Danamma was partly overruled to the extent inconsistent. Pending matters were requested to be decided, as far as possible, within six months, and the individual cases were directed to appropriate Benches for merits decisions. (¶ 130)
Result
Reference answered. Contrary precedents overruled to the stated extent; individual matters directed to appropriate Benches for decision on merits, with a request for expeditious disposal of pending cases.