THE LEGAL BRIDGE

thelegalbridge.in

2005 Amendment — Daughter as Coparcener

Topic 55 | Module 5: HSA, 1956 | The Legal Bridge

For Judicial Service Aspirants: RJS | DJS | PCS-J | HJS | APO

Comprehensive Study Notes with Landmark Case Laws, Mnemonics & Exam Tips

2005 Amendment — Daughter as Coparcener (Section 6 as Amended)

Relevant Provision: Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005

Priority: HIGHEST | Exam Relevance: RJS / DJS / PCS-J / HJS (THE MOST IMPORTANT AMENDMENT IN HINDU LAW)

1. Introduction

The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, which came into force on 9 September 2005, is the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT legislative amendment in the entire history of Hindu personal law. By amending Section 6 of HSA, the 2005 Amendment made DAUGHTERS equal coparceners in Mitakshara coparcenary property — giving them the SAME rights by birth, the SAME liabilities, and the SAME share as sons. This amendment destroyed the centuries-old male monopoly over coparcenary and brought Hindu succession law into alignment with constitutional equality principles.

The amendment's interpretation generated a TRILOGY of Supreme Court decisions — Prakash v. Phulavati (2016), Danamma v. Amar (2018), and the definitive Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) — which collectively settled that the daughter's coparcenary right is BY BIRTH and RETROACTIVE, not dependent on the father being alive on the date of the amendment. The Vineeta Sharma decision overruled Prakash v. Phulavati and is now the AUTHORITATIVE interpretation. This topic is tested in EVERY judiciary examination without exception.

2. TEXT OF SECTION 6 (POST-2005)

"(1) On and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, in a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener shall—

(a) by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son;

(b) have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son;

(c) be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenary property as that of a son,

and any reference to a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to include a reference to a daughter of a coparcener.

Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect or invalidate any disposition or alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of property which had taken place before the 20th day of December, 2004."

"(3) Where a Hindu dies after the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, his interest in the property of a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be, under this Act and not by survivorship, and the coparcenary property shall be deemed to have been divided as if a partition had taken place...

"(4) After the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, no court shall recognise any right to proceed against a son, grandson or great-grandson for the recovery of any debt due from his father, grandfather or great-grandfather solely on the ground of the pious obligation under the Hindu law..." [Abolition of pious obligation]

3. KEY CHANGES BY THE 2005 AMENDMENT

3.1 Daughter as Coparcener — S.6(1)

The amendment's CORE change:

1. By birth: Daughter becomes coparcener BY BIRTH — not by any action, registration, or court order.
2. Same manner as son: All incidents of coparcenary apply equally — right by birth, fluctuating interest, right to partition, right to demand accounts.
3. Same rights: Same rights in coparcenary property as a son.
4. Same liabilities: Subject to same liabilities — including liability for family debts to the extent of coparcenary interest.
5. Inclusive definition: Any reference to 'coparcener' now INCLUDES daughter.

3.2 Survivorship Abolished — S.6(3)

For deaths AFTER the 2005 Amendment, coparcenary interest devolves by TESTAMENTARY or INTESTATE SUCCESSION — NOT by survivorship. This is a FUNDAMENTAL change:

• Pre-2005: On coparcener's death, interest went to surviving coparceners by survivorship (subject to proviso).
• Post-2005: On coparcener's death, interest goes to heirs by succession. Surviving coparceners do NOT automatically absorb.

3.3 Pious Obligation Abolished — S.6(4)

No court shall recognise pious obligation of son/grandson/great-grandson for father's/grandfather's/great-grandfather's debts. (Covered in Topic 52.)

3.4 Saving Clause — Proviso to S.6(1)

Dispositions, alienations, partitions, or testamentary dispositions that took place BEFORE 20 December 2004 are NOT affected. Pre-2005 partitions are FINAL.

4. THE VINEETA SHARMA TRILOGY

4.1 Prakash v. Phulavati (2016) 2 SCC 36 — OVERRULED

A 2-judge bench held that the 2005 Amendment is PROSPECTIVE — daughter's coparcenary right arises only if the FATHER was ALIVE on 9.9.2005. If the father died before 9.9.2005, the daughter had no coparcenary right.

This interpretation was widely criticised for:

• Making the right contingent on the father's survival — which daughters could not control.
• Creating arbitrary distinctions between daughters whose fathers died before vs after 9.9.2005.
• Contradicting the text of S.6(1) which says 'by birth' — suggesting inherent, not conditional, right.

4.2 Danamma v. Amar (2018) 3 SCC 343

A 2-judge bench departed from Prakash and held that the daughter's right exists EVEN WHERE the father died before 2005. However, being another 2-judge bench, it could not formally overrule Prakash.

4.3 Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) 9 SCC 1 — DEFINITIVE

A 3-JUDGE BENCH resolved the conflict DEFINITIVELY:

1. By birth, not by father's survival: The daughter becomes coparcener BY BIRTH. Her right is not dependent on the father being alive on 9.9.2005.
2. Retroactive: Since the right is by birth, it operates retroactively — every daughter born to a coparcener has coparcenary rights, regardless of when born or when the father died.
3. Prakash OVERRULED: The Prakash v. Phulavati interpretation is expressly overruled.
4. Only exception: Pre-20.12.2004 partitions and dispositions are saved (proviso to S.6(1)).

5. DETAILED COMPARISON: PRE-2005 vs POST-2005

6. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

1. Partition claims by daughters: Daughters can now sue for partition of coparcenary property and claim equal shares.
2. Succession to coparcenary: On death of a coparcener, daughters inherit as Class I heirs AND as coparceners.
3. Management: Some High Courts have recognised daughter's right to be Karta (evolving area).
4. Tax implications: HUF composition changes; daughter as coparcener affects HUF tax assessments.
5. Existing property: Daughters can claim in coparcenary property existing as of 9.9.2005, provided no pre-2004 partition/disposition.

7. LANDMARK CASES

⚖️ Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) 9 SCC 1

Ratio: THE DEFINITIVE CASE. 3-judge bench. Daughter's coparcenary right is BY BIRTH and RETROACTIVE. Not dependent on father being alive on 9.9.2005. Overruled Prakash v. Phulavati. Every daughter born to a coparcener is a coparcener.

⚖️ Prakash v. Phulavati (2016) 2 SCC 36

Ratio: OVERRULED. Had held amendment prospective — father must be alive. NO LONGER GOOD LAW. Still important to know for comparison.

⚖️ Danamma v. Amar (2018) 3 SCC 343

Ratio: Expanded daughter's rights even where father died pre-2005. Pre-cursor to Vineeta Sharma. Confirmed by the 2020 decision.

⚖️ Commissioner HR v. Smt. Gauri (2018) 12 SCC 175

Ratio: Pre-2005 partition already registered = FINAL. Daughter cannot claim coparcenary in already-partitioned property. The proviso to S.6(1) protects pre-2004 transactions.

⚖️ Arshnoor Singh v. Harpal Kaur (2019) 20 SCC 745

Ratio: Daughter's coparcenary right SURVIVES father's death. Right is STATUTORY, not derivative from father.

⚖️ Arunachala Gounder v. Ponnusamy (2022) 5 SCC 337

Ratio: Self-acquired property of issueless Hindu male dying intestate devolves on daughters as Class I heirs. Important post-2005 application.

8. IMPORTANT POINTS FOR EXAM REVISION

1. 2005 Amendment (9.9.2005): THE most important Hindu law amendment ever.
2. Daughter = coparcener BY BIRTH: Same rights and liabilities as son.
3. Survivorship abolished: S.6(3) — devolution by succession.
4. Pious obligation abolished: S.6(4).
5. Vineeta Sharma (2020): By birth, retroactive, Prakash OVERRULED.
6. Prakash v. Phulavati (2016): OVERRULED — no longer good law.
7. Proviso: Pre-20.12.2004 partitions/dispositions saved.
8. Father need NOT be alive: Daughter's right is inherent, not conditional.
9. Daughter can demand partition: Equal share as son.
10. Karta question evolving: Some HCs recognise daughter as potential Karta.

🧠 MNEMONIC: 2005 Amendment — 'DCS-P'

Daughter = Coparcener; Survivorship abolished; Pious obligation abolished. D-C-S-P. Three massive changes in one amendment.

🧠 MNEMONIC: Vineeta Sharma = 'BBR'

By Birth, Retroactive. That's the complete holding. Daughter's right is BY BIRTH and RETROACTIVE. Father's survival irrelevant.

🎯 EXAM TIP

This is THE most important topic. EVERY exam asks about it. Must know: (1) Text of S.6(1)(a)(b)(c); (2) Vineeta Sharma — by birth, retroactive; (3) Prakash OVERRULED; (4) Survivorship abolished; (5) Proviso — pre-2004 transactions saved; (6) Comparison table pre vs post-2005.

✨ Essay Strategy

For 2005 Amendment essay: (1) Historical context — pre-2005 position (survivorship, male-only coparcenary); (2) Text of amended S.6; (3) Three key changes (daughter coparcener, survivorship abolished, pious obligation abolished); (4) The TRILOGY — Prakash (overruled) → Danamma → Vineeta Sharma (definitive); (5) Comparison table; (6) Practical implications; (7) Proviso — pre-2004 transactions; (8) Constitutional basis (Art.14, 15); (9) Conclusion on transformative impact.

9. PRACTICE QUESTIONS

Q1: Discuss the 2005 Amendment to Section 6 HSA. How did it transform Hindu coparcenary law?

Q2: Trace the judicial interpretation of the 2005 Amendment through Prakash v. Phulavati, Danamma v. Amar, and Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma. What is the current position?

Q3: 'The daughter's coparcenary right is by birth, not dependent on the father being alive.' Discuss.

Q4: A's father died in 2001. Can A (daughter) claim coparcenary rights in 2023? Discuss with reference to Vineeta Sharma.

Q5: Partition was effected and registered in 2003. Can a daughter claim coparcenary rights in the already-partitioned property?

Q6: Compare the position of a daughter in coparcenary property before and after the 2005 Amendment.

Q7: Has the 2005 Amendment completely abolished the doctrine of survivorship? Discuss.

Q8: Can a daughter be the Karta of a Joint Hindu Family after the 2005 Amendment? Discuss.