scorecardresearch
Monday, Sep 26, 2022

‘Once a daughter, always a daughter’: SC rules in favour of women’s equal right to parental property throughout life

A three-judge bench headed Justice Arun Mishra said, "Daughters must be given equal rights as sons, Daughter remains a loving daughter throughout life. The daughter shall remain a coparcener throughout life, irrespective of whether her father is alive or not."

Supreme Court, Supreme Court Prashant Bhushan case, Prashant Bhushan case, Prashant Bhushan contempt case, Supreme Court Prashant Bhushan contempt case, Express Opinion, Indian ExpressThe bench referred the case filed by the Punjab government against the high court order before CJI Justice S A Bobde for setting up of a larger bench to revisit the earlier verdict.

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court Tuesday ruled that daughters will have equal right in the parental property as son even if their father died before the Hindu Succession (amendment) Act 2005 came into force.

A three-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra said, “Daughters must be given equal rights as sons. Daughter remains a loving daughter throughout life. The daughter shall remain a coparcener throughout life, irrespective of whether her father is alive or not.”

The bench also held that “rights under the amendment are applicable to living daughters of living coparceners as on 9-9-2005, irrespective of when such daughters are born”.

The bench was hearing a batch of appeals that raised an important legal issue whether the Hindu Succession (Amendment) which gave equal rights to daughters in ancestral property, has a retrospective effect.

Subscriber Only Stories
UPSC Key-September 26, 2022: Why you should read ‘Attorney General of Ind...Premium
Congress & its missteps: Rajasthan latest in a series of own goalsPremium
UPSC Essentials: Key terms of the past week with MCQsPremium
ExplainSpeaking: Why RBI is likely to cut GDP growth forecast and raise i...Premium

Settling the disputed question of law, the top court set aside a clutch of previous decisions that a daughter would have the coparcenary right only if both the father and the daughter were alive as on September 9, 2005 when the amendment was notified.

The court had earlier given two contradictory judgments in two cases — Prakash V. Phulavati (2015) and Danamma @ Suman Surpur vs. Amar (2018).  In Prakash V. Phulavati (2015), a bench comprising Justices Anil R. Dave and A.K. Goel had held that the rights under the amendment are applicable to living daughters of living coparceners as on 9-9-2005, irrespective of when such daughters are born. It was held that,  is neither any express provision for giving retrospective effect to the amended provision nor necessary intendment to that effect.

On the other hand, in the case of Danamma @ Suman Surpur vs. Amar (2018), the bench comprising Justices A K  Sikri and Ashok Bhushan had held that the share of the father who died in 2001 would also devolve upon his two daughters who would be entitled to share in the property.

First published on: 11-08-2020 at 03:41:57 pm
Next Story

Coronavirus breaks out again in New Zealand after 102 days

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement