Balanced scales of justice showing son and daughter with Hindu Succession Act, 2005 law book representing equal inheritance rights.

Supreme Court Judgments on Hindu Succession Act, 2005

Delhi Law Academy 3 Year LLB, 5 Year LLB, Criminal Law

Illustration of Illustration of the bigamy law in india for hindus

📘 Supreme Court Judgments on Hindu Succession Act, 2005

Daughters’ Coparcenary Rights Explained for RJS, DJS, PCS (J)

📚 Introduction

The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 brought daughters on par with sons by conferring coparcenary rights by birth.
However, the scope and applicability of the amendment led to conflicting judicial interpretations.

The Supreme Court, through a series of landmark judgments, has clarified the nature of daughters’ rights under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act.
This post discusses the most important Supreme Court judgments on the 2005 amendment.

⚖️ Prakash v. Phulavati (2016)

In Prakash v. Phulavati (2016), the Supreme Court held that the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 is prospective in nature.
It was observed that the rights conferred under the amended Section 6 are available only if the coparcener father was alive on the date of commencement of the amendment.

This judgment restricted the application of the amendment and gave rise to considerable legal debate.

⚖️ Danamma v. Amar (2018)

In Danamma v. Amar (2018), the Supreme Court appeared to take a different view.
The Court granted coparcenary rights to daughters even though the father had died prior to the 2005 amendment.

This judgment created uncertainty as it seemed inconsistent with the ruling in Prakash v. Phulavati.

⚖️ Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020)

The controversy was conclusively settled by the Constitution Bench in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020).
The Supreme Court held that the right of a daughter as a coparcener is by birth and does not depend on whether the father was alive on the date of the 2005 amendment.

The Court clarified that the amendment is retroactive in operation and applies to pending partitions, subject to the exception of valid prior partitions.

📌 Settled Legal Position After Vineeta Sharma

  • Daughters are coparceners by birth
  • Father need not be alive on 9 September 2005
  • Rights apply to ancestral property governed by Mitakshara law
  • Valid prior partitions remain unaffected

📌 Importance for Judicial Service Examinations

Questions on the retrospective or prospective nature of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 are frequently asked in judicial service examinations.
Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma is now the leading authority on daughters’ coparcenary rights.

🔗 Related Reading

(Internal links for deeper understanding and exam preparation)

📘 Stay Ahead with Delhi Law Academy!

Get access to free monthly current affairs, read our insightful blogs,
and explore free study resources prepared by experts at DLA Jaipur. 🚀

❓ Frequently Asked Questions

Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) is the leading authority on daughters’ coparcenary rights under the Hindu Succession Act, 2005.

No. The Supreme Court has clarified that the daughter’s right is by birth and does not depend on whether the father was alive on the date of the amendment.

The Court held that the 2005 amendment was prospective and applicable only if the father was alive on the date of commencement.

Danamma v. Amar granted coparcenary rights to daughters even when the father had died before 2005, conflicting with Prakash v. Phulavati.

These judgments clarify the scope of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act and are frequently tested in both prelims and mains of judicial service examinations.