The family laws applicable to Hindus in India were codified in 1950’s after independence of India, prior to which the scriptural Hindu law was applicable which denied women equal property rights. While the Hindu Succession Act 1956 (‘HSA’) gave some property rights to women and daughters, it limited such rights to a share in a person’s self-acquired property. The most prevalent form of property structure amongst Hindus— Hindu joint family property (‘HJF’)—remained outside the ambit of reform. This changed in the year 2005 when the law declared the daughter of a coparcener becomes a coparcener in her own right by birth. The present controversy arose with regard to the interpretation of the amended Section 6 of the HSA which made daughters equal sharers in HJF and conferred with same rights and obligations as of sons, the original sharers of such property under Hindu Law. It was brought in with a view to correct the gender discrimination suffered by daughters by their exclusion from HJF and the negation of her fundamental right to equality.
The court had to decide whether it is necessary that the father coparcener through whom the daughter acquires property rights is alive as on the date of the commencement of the amended HSA. The case was decided on a pure question of law and the court was concerned with resolving the conflicting decisions of 2-judge benches over this issue. The Court held that coparcenary is a right by birth and thus, it is not necessary that the father of the coparcener should be living as on the date of commencement of Amendment Act. Further, the daughters can claim their share in HJF only subject to the savings of transactions disposing, alienating, partitioning the joint family property which had taken place before Dec 20, 2004. Unless such a transaction was final, it would not defeat the property rights of the daughter. Instead of being prospective, the court held the daughters acquired a retroactive right in the HJF.
