ANOMALY CREATED BY SC OVER SEC 6 OF HINDU SUCCESSION ACT,1956

Females have suffered a lot in India for their property rights. After the amendment of succession act in 2005 females felt a bit relaxed due to the egalitarianism provisions. But confusion arose over applicability of sec 6 i.e. whether women born after 2005 will get benefit as coparcener or it will apply retrospectively. In case PRAKASH & ORS vs. PHULAVATI &ors. (2015) sc opined:-

“The rights of coparcener under amendment act 2005 are applicable to living daughters of living coparceners as on 9/9/2005 irrespective of the birth date of daughters.”

Simply its means if the father passes before the said date 9/9/20015, the living daughter of coparcener would have no right in coparceners property. So sc had set a clear line for availability of right under 2005 amendment but anomaly arose, In case:-DANAMMAS VS AMAR (2018)  sc unintentionally giving a peculiar judgement i.e.:-

“ Partition is not complete with passing of preliminary decree &attains finality on final decree. If father had died before 2005 & prior suit is pending by male coparcener for partition, female coparcener is entitled to share in partition” has changed the line set by PRAKASH case.

So this judgement gave birth to multifarious problems&c conflicts as if father had did before 2005 & male coparcener not filed suit for partition daughter can’t claim rights of coparcener so this interpretation requires an urgent rethink otherwise it will be abhorrent to the rights of various females.

 

By – Deepak, Student Reporter, INBA