The minor change (amendment) to the Hindu Succession Act giving daughters equal rights to ancestral property is applicable even for girls born before the law was changed in 2005, the Supreme Court has said. The Supreme Court on Friday made it clear that women born before 2005 have equal right on ancestral property.
"Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act of 2005 is taking effect from a date in the past (retroactive) in operation," a full bench stated on Thursday. "In other words, the provisions of the amended section 6(3) do not and cannot impinge upon or curtail or restrict the rights of daughters born prior to 9 September 2005," the judges said.
A bench of Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan said that the share in ancestral property could not be denied, to a woman, on the ground that she was born before the law was passed, and the law was applicable in all property disputes filed before 2005 and pending when the law was framed.
The bench added that the amended law stipulated that a daughter would be a “coparcener” (one who shares equally in inheritance of an undivided property) since birth, and have the same rights and liabilities as a son.
Before the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act in 1956, Hindus were covered by shastric and customary laws that varied from region to region.
Under the Mitakshara school of Hindu law, a woman in a joint Hindu family had the right only to maintenance/ sustenance but not to inheritance of property.
Consequently, if a partition took place in the coparcenary (joint family) property, then each male coparcener was entitled to a share. But a daughter did not get a share. The daughter would only get a share as one of the heirs on the death of coparcener.
Information Source: Finacialexpress, Dndindia, UC
"Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act of 2005 is taking effect from a date in the past (retroactive) in operation," a full bench stated on Thursday. "In other words, the provisions of the amended section 6(3) do not and cannot impinge upon or curtail or restrict the rights of daughters born prior to 9 September 2005," the judges said.
A bench of Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan said that the share in ancestral property could not be denied, to a woman, on the ground that she was born before the law was passed, and the law was applicable in all property disputes filed before 2005 and pending when the law was framed.
The bench added that the amended law stipulated that a daughter would be a “coparcener” (one who shares equally in inheritance of an undivided property) since birth, and have the same rights and liabilities as a son.
Before the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act in 1956, Hindus were covered by shastric and customary laws that varied from region to region.
Under the Mitakshara school of Hindu law, a woman in a joint Hindu family had the right only to maintenance/ sustenance but not to inheritance of property.
Consequently, if a partition took place in the coparcenary (joint family) property, then each male coparcener was entitled to a share. But a daughter did not get a share. The daughter would only get a share as one of the heirs on the death of coparcener.
Information Source: Finacialexpress, Dndindia, UC
