Daughters Have Equal Rights In Ancestral Property, Even If They Were Born Before Enactment Of Hindu Succession Act, Holds Supreme Court

Daughters Have Equal Rights In Ancestral Property, Even If They Were Born Before Enactment Of Hindu Succession Act, Holds Supreme Court [Read Judgment] Feb 4th 2018, 09:07, by Sukriti Manu Sebastian The Supreme Court has held that daughters who were born before the enactment of Hindu Succession Act 1956 are entitled to equal shares as son in ancestral property.  The ruling was rendered in an appeal filed by daughters challenging a decree in a partition suit, which excluded them from partition.  The partition suit was filed by the grandson of the deceased propositus of a joint family in 2002. The Trial Court held that daughters were not entitled to share in property, as they were born before 1956, the year of enactment of Hindu Succession Act. The Trail Court also denied them the benefit of 2005 amendment, which conferred equal coparcenary status to daughters as sons.  The High Court upheld the decree of the Trial Court. The Supreme Court held that the Courts below erred in holding that daughters were not entitled to partition because they were born before 1956. It was held that according to Section 6 of the Act ,when a coparcener dies leaving behind any female relative specified in Class I of the Schedule to the Act(which includes a daughter), his undivided interest in the Mitakshara coparcenary property would not devolve upon the surviving coparcener by survivorship but upon his heirs by intestate succession.  Therefore, the interest of the deceased coparcener would devolve by intestate succession on his heirs, which included his daughters. The Court also held that the daughters were entitled to the benefit of 2005 amendment as well, and on that basis also they were entitled to shares.  It was settled in Prakash v. Phulavati (2016) 2 SCC 36 rights under the amendment area available to daughters living on the date of amendment, irrespective of when they were born.  In the instant case, the bench comprising Justice A.K Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan explained it further, and stated that the amendment declared that a daughter ‘shall by birth’  became coparcener in her own right in the same manner as son. Hence, the daughter will get coparcenary right by virtue of the amendment, ‘since birth’. It was observed as follows :- Section 6, as amended, stipulates that on and from the commencement of the amended Act, 2005, the daughter of a coparcener shall by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son. It is apparent that the status conferred upon sons under the old section and the old Hindu Law was to treat them as coparceners since birth. The amended provision now statutorily recognizes the rights of coparceners of daughters as well since birth. The section uses the words in the same manner as the son. It should therefore be apparent that both the sons and the daughters of a coparcener have been conferred the right of becoming coparceners by birth. It is the very factum of birth in a coparcenary that creates the coparcenary, therefore the sons and daughters of a coparcener become coparceners by virtue of birth. Devolution of coparcenary property is the later stage of and a consequence of death of a coparcener. The first stage of a coparcenary is obviously its creation as explained above, and as is well recognized. Also, the fact that the partition suit was filed in 2002 was held to be inconsequential. The Court stated that so far as partition suits are concerned, the partition becomes final only on the passing of a final decree. The decree was passed in 2007. Here, the rights of the daughters got crystallised in 2005, and hence the Trial Court ought to have taken into account that aspect while passing decree in 2007. The Court also observed that 2005 amendment was brought in on the touchstone of equality, thus seeking to remove the perceived disability and prejudice to which a daughter was subjected. The fundamental changes brought forward about in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 by amending it in 2005, are perhaps a realization of the immortal words of Roscoe Pound as appearing in his celebrated treaties, The Ideal Element in Law, that “the law must be stable and yet it cannot stand still. Hence all thinking about law has struggled to reconcile the conflicting demands of the need of stability and the need of change.- the Bench observed. Hence, it was held that shares will devolve on the daughters as well. Read the Judgment Here

All HUF Assets Should Be Taken As Joint Property Unless Proven Otherwise: SC

All HUF Assets Should Be Taken As Joint Property Unless Proven Otherwise: SC [Read Judgment] Sep 15th 2017, 04:32, by Sukriti The Supreme Court recently reiterated the principle that all assets in a Hindu Undivided Family would be presumed to be joint property belonging to all its members and that the burden to prove otherwise is on the family member asserting such claim. “It is a settled principle of Hindu law that there lies a legal presumption that every Hindu family is joint in food, worship and estate and in the absence of any proof of division, such legal presumption continues to operate in the family. The burden, therefore, lies upon the member who after admitting the existence of jointness in the family properties asserts his claim that some properties out of entire lot of ancestral properties are his self-acquired property,” the Bench comprising Justice R.K. Agrawal and Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre observed. The Court was hearing an Appeal challenging an order passed by the Karnataka High Court in a family dispute pertaining to ownership and partition of agricultural lands. The Apex Court upheld the High Court’s order which had declared the property as joint property of the family. The Court opined that the Appellants had failed to prove that the property was self acquired and observed, “In order to prove that the suit properties described in Schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ were their self-acquired properties, the plaintiffs could have adduced the best evidence in the form of a sale-deed showing their names as purchasers of the said properties and also could have adduced evidence of payment of sale consideration made by them to the vendee. It was, however, not done. Not only that, the plaintiffs also failed to adduce any other kind of documentary evidence to prove their self-acquisition of the Schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ properties nor they were able to prove the source of its acquisition.” It, therefore, upheld the judgments passed by the lower Courts and observed, “In our considered opinion, it was, therefore, obligatory upon the plaintiffs to have proved that despite existence of jointness in the family, properties described in Schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ was not part of ancestral properties but were their self-acquired properties. As held above, the plaintiffs failed to prove this material fact for want of any evidence. We have, therefore, no hesitation in upholding the concurrent findings of the two Courts, which in our opinion, are based on proper appreciation of oral evidence.” Read the Judgment Here