Case Study: Danamma v. Amar
“Daughters Gain Equal Coparcenary Rights in Ancestral Property”
Citation: AIR 2018 SC 721
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment: 1st February, 2018
Bench: Justice A.K. Sikri, Justice Ashok Bhushan
Facts
- Gurulingappa Savadi, propositus of a Hindu Joint Family, died, leaving behind his wife, two sons (Arunkumar and Vijay), and two daughters (Danamma and Suman). Danamma and Suman are the appellants in this case.
- After the death of propositus, Amar (son of Arunkumar) filed a suit for the partition and separate possession of the joint family property on 1 July 2002.
- Amar claimed that the two sons and the widow were jointly entitled to the possession of the property for being coparceners.
- The respondent contended that the appellants, daughters born before the Hindu Succession Act of 1956, were not coparceners in the joint family.
- Additionally, it was argued that the appellants had relinquished their share in the property by accepting gold and money at their marriage.
- The appellants contested the lawsuit, claiming their entitlement to the share in the joint family property.
Judgment of the Trial Court
The trial court dismissed the appellants’ claim, ruling that they were ineligible for a share in the property as they were born before the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 came into force, thereby precluding their status as coparceners. The court also rejected the appellants’ alternative argument that they acquired a share in the property under the 2005 amendment to the Act.
Judgment of the High Court
The High Court affirmed the trial court’s decision in its judgment dated January 25, 2012. This upheld the partition decree issued on August 9, 2007. The appellants, dissatisfied with the High Court’s judgment, sought a review of the case by filing a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
The court established that the daughters are coparceners by birth with equal coparcenary rights as sons. The court gave retroactive application of coparcenary rights, meaning that the daughters born before the 2005 amendment are also entitled to coparcenary rights and shares in ancestral property.
Furthermore; the apex court also observed that preliminary decrees in partition suits can be modified to accommodate the changes introduced by the 2005 Act, ensuring that the timing of the legal proceedings does not disadvantage daughters.
Key legal issues discussed
1. Does the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 grant daughters the status of coparceners ‘by birth,’ equivalent to sons, entitling them to an equal share in ancestral property?
Yes
The 2005 amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act marked a pivotal shift towards gender equality in the realm of inheritance within Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs). Prior to this amendment, daughters were excluded from coparcenary rights, a fundamental legal concept conferring ownership and management rights over ancestral property. By explicitly conferring coparcenary status on daughters from the moment of their birth, the amendment sought to rectify this historical injustice.
The legislative intent was clear: to place daughters on an equal footing with sons in terms of their rights and liabilities within the coparcenary. This is unequivocally expressed in Section 6(1)(a) of the Act, which states that a daughter becomes a coparcener by birth in the same manner as a son. This provision fundamentally altered the legal landscape, establishing that a daughter’s coparcenary rights are inherent and originate from the simple fact of being born into the coparcenary.
The court’s interpretation of this amendment was equally unequivocal. It recognized that creating a coparcenary is intrinsically linked to birth within the family. Consequently, both sons and daughters, by virtue of their birth into the coparcenary, automatically acquire the status of coparceners. This interpretation effectively dismantled the discriminatory practice of denying daughters their rightful share in ancestral property solely based on their gender.
2. Can the appellants, as daughters born before the Hindu Succession Act of 1956, be denied their rightful share in the ancestral property on the basis of their birth date and subsequent exclusion from coparcenary status?
No
The Danamma v. Amar case is a pivotal moment in the evolution of women’s rights in India, particularly in property inheritance. By unequivocally granting daughters equal coparcenary rights with their brothers, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment that challenged deeply entrenched patriarchal norms.
Prior to the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, the legal landscape discriminated against daughters by excluding them from ancestral property rights. This discriminatory practice was rooted in a patriarchal societal structure that viewed women as secondary inheritors. The Danamma case decisively dismantled this archaic system.
The court’s interpretation of the 2005 amendment was progressive and far-reaching. By recognizing daughters as coparceners from birth, the judgment not only rectified historical injustices but also laid the foundation for a more equitable society. The decision to award Danamma and Suman their rightful shares in their father’s property was symbolic of this transformative shift.
The implications of the Danamma case extend beyond the immediate parties involved. It serves as a powerful precedent for future cases and has inspired broader discussions about gender equality and women’s economic empowerment. The judgment is a testament to the judiciary’s role in shaping a more just and inclusive India.
Ultimately, the Danamma case represents a significant step forward in the journey towards gender equality. It is a victory for women’s rights and a beacon of hope for future generations.
3. Can a preliminary decree passed in the partition suit be modified if, during the pendency of the suit, the Hindu Succession Act, 2005, was passed?
Yes
The court’s decision to modify the preliminary decree in this case hinges on a crucial precedent set by Ganduri Koteshwaramma & Anr. v. Chakiri Yanadi & Anr.[1]. This landmark case established a significant principle: the legal landscape is not static, and courts retain the flexibility to adapt to changes in the law.
Specifically, the Ganduri Koteshwaramma case determined that the procedural rule enshrined in Order XX Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not an insurmountable barrier to modifying a preliminary decree. If intervening legal developments necessitate a readjustment of the shares determined in the preliminary decree, the court retains the discretion to do so.
The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, which conferred coparcenary rights on daughters, represents precisely such an intervening legal development. The amendment fundamentally altered the dynamics of property distribution within Hindu undivided families by granting daughters equal rights to ancestral property.
Consequently, the court in the present case rightly concluded that the rights of daughters under the amended Act should not be curtailed by a preliminary decree issued before the amendment came into force. To uphold the spirit of the new law, the court exercised its power to modify the decree, ensuring that the timing of the partition proceedings did not disadvantage daughters. This decision underscores the judiciary’s role in adapting the law to evolving societal norms and ensuring justice for all.
[1] (2011) 9 SCC 788.
