Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma

(2020) 9 SCC 1 — 3-Judge Bench

Ratio: FINAL LAW on S.6: Daughters have equal coparcenary rights by birth, irrespective of whether the father was alive on 09.09.2005. The amendment is retroactive (not retrospective, not prospective). Overruled Prakash v. Phulavati on the requirement of father being alive. Endorsed Danamma v. Amar. An oral partition cannot be a defence unless proved genuine through: separate possession, appropriation of income, revenue records, or public documents.

Prakash v. Phulavati

(2016) 2 SCC 36 — 2-Judge Bench

Ratio: Held that the 2005 Amendment is prospective and both father and daughter must be alive on 09.09.2005. OVERRULED by Vineeta Sharma (2020).

Danamma v. Amar

(2018) 3 SCC 343 — 2-Judge Bench

Ratio: Held daughters have coparcenary rights even if the father died before 2005. Partly consistent with, and fully endorsed by, Vineeta Sharma.

Gurupad v. Hirabai

AIR 1978 SC 1239

Ratio: While ascertaining the share of a deceased coparcener for S.6 (pre-2005), notional partition includes allotment of a share to the widow. The widow gets a share BOTH in the notional partition AND as a Class I heir. Dual benefit.

Uttam v. Saubhag Singh

(2016) 4 SCC 68

Ratio: Class I female heir (daughter) of a coparcener who died BEFORE the HSA 1956 cannot claim a share by notional partition. The undivided interest devolves by survivorship, not succession, if death occurred before the Act.

V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy

(1977) 3 SCC 99 — 3-Judge Bench

Ratio: Foundational judgment on S.14. Property in lieu of maintenance = absolute ownership under S.14(1). S.14(2) is a proviso to S.14(1). Liberal interpretation mandated. Called S.14 a ‘paradise for lawyers’ due to its inapt draftsmanship.

Badri Pershad v. Kanso Devi

(1970) 2 SCC 77

Ratio: S.14(2) does not cover transfers recognizing a pre-existing right. If the instrument recognizes maintenance right, S.14(1) applies.

Karmi v. Amru

(1972) 4 SCC 86

Ratio: Counter-stream: where a will creates a NEW restricted estate not recognizing a pre-existing right, S.14(2) applies.

Tej Bhan v. Ram Kishan

2024 SCC OnLine SC 3661

Ratio: Referred S.14 to LARGER BENCH due to 18+ conflicting SC judgments. Two streams identified: Tulasamma’s liberal vs. Karmi’s restrictive. PENDING.

Arunachala Gounder v. Ponnusamy

(2022) 1 SCC 707

Ratio: Self-acquired property of a Hindu male dying intestate and without Class I heirs goes to Class II heirs. Daughters of predeceased son are Class I heirs. Clarified the interplay of S.8 and the Schedule.

Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun

(2011) 11 SCC 1

Ratio: Illegitimate children (S.16 HMA) have a right in property of both parents, but NOT in joint family/coparcenary property. Their share is limited to the self-acquired property and the share which the parent would have received on partition.

Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan

(2023) 2 SCC 567 — 5-Judge Constitution Bench

Ratio: SC has inherent power under Article 142 to grant divorce on irretrievable breakdown of marriage, even without waiting for the S.13B cooling-off period. Though primarily an HMA case, impacts succession and property rights.

Sunil Kumar v. Ram Prakash

(1988) 2 SCC 77

Ratio: A coparcener cannot seek permanent injunction against the Karta to prevent alienation of joint family property. Remedy is to challenge post-alienation.

Arshnoor Singh v. Harpal Kaur

AIR 2019 SC 3098

Ratio: Sale of joint family property by Karta without legal necessity or benefit of estate is illegal, null and void.

Jogi Ram v. Suresh Kumar

2022 LiveLaw (SC) 115

Ratio: Limited estate under a will matures into absolute estate under S.14(1) ONLY if given for maintenance. If maintenance is otherwise secured, restricted estate under S.14(2) survives.

H. Srinivasa v. H.V. Raghavendra

(2020) 10 SCC 604

Ratio: Post-2005, a coparcener can bequeath undivided coparcenary interest by will (S.30 HSA + Explanation).

The Big 5 Must-Know HSA Cases

1. Vineeta Sharma (2020) — Daughter = coparcener by birth, retroactive 2. V. Tulasamma (1977) — S.14(1) liberal, S.14(2) = proviso 3. Gurupad v. Hirabai (1978) — Widow’s dual benefit in notional partition 4. Revanasiddappa (2011) — Illegitimate child’s property rights 5. Tej Bhan (2024) — S.14 larger bench reference (PENDING)

EXAM TIP: For the 2005 Amendment trilogy: Prakash v. Phulavati (OVERRULED) → Danamma v. Amar (partially correct) → Vineeta Sharma (FINAL LAW). Always mention all three to show you know the evolution. For S.14: Tulasamma (prevailing) vs. Karmi (counter-stream) → Tej Bhan (pending reconciliation).