Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(b) have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son;
(c) be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenary property as that of a son, and any reference to a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to include a reference to a daughter of a coparcener:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect or invalidate any disposition or alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of property which had taken place before the 20th day of December, 2004.
(2) Any property to which a female Hindu becomes entitled by virtue of sub-section (1) shall be held by her with the incidents of coparcenary ownership and shall be regarded, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force in, as property capable of being disposed of by her by testamentary disposition.
(3) Where a Hindu dies after the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005*, his interest in the property of a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be, under this Act and not by survivorship, and the coparcenary property shall be deemed to have been divided as if a partition had taken place and,--
The aforesaid amendment in Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act brought revolutionary change to remove the discrimination as it existed in the unamended provision by conferring equal rights to the daughters at par with the rights as that of the sons in the Hindu Mitakshara coparcenary property. The said amended provision came into effect from 9.9.2005 and from this date the daughters in the Hindu Joint family became entitled to the same rights and liabilities in the joint family property as that of a son. By the said amendment the legislature has conferred substantive rights in favour of the daughters. It may be mentioned here that prior to the said amendment the daughters had no right in the coparcenary property by virtue of her birth in Mitakshara family.Therefore, there cannot arise any dispute so far the right of a daughter in coparcenary property pursuant to the said amendment is concerned. The core issue which is under examination in the present case before the court is whether any daughter born in Mitakshara family prior to the introduction of the said amendment in Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is entitled to reopen the succession, alienation or partition which had taken place before 20.12.2004, merely because such a daughter is governed by the Mitakshara law and was born in the family before the said amendment. The answer to this legal question has been given in catena of judgments by the various High Courts but the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GanduriKoteshwaramma&Anr. Vs. ChakiriYanadi&Anr. (2011) 9 SCC 788 is worth mentioning in this context, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has delineated the categories where new Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 would not be applicable . The Apex Court in relevant paragraphs 11 and 12 held as under:
"11. The new Section 6 provides for parity of rights in the coparcenary property among male and female members of a joint Hindu family on and from September 9, 2005. The Legislature has now conferred substantive right in favour of the daughters. According to the new Section 6, the daughter of a coparcener becomes a coparcener by birth in her own rights and liabilities in the same manner as the son. The declaration in Section 6 that the daughter of the coparcener shall have same rights and liabilities in the coparcenary property as she would have been a son is unambiguous and unequivocal. Thus, on and from September 9, 2005, the daughter is entitled to a share in the ancestral property and is a coparcener as if she had been a son.