Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment has given daughters a step ahead of son and held that “Once a daughter, always a daughter … son is a son till he is married.” Also known as “Dukhatari” or “Dukhatari Hesiyat” Urdu legal terms in India are the rights of a daughter in the fathers property and ancestral property. With the emergence of Article 14 of the Constitution which gave right of equality to every citizen of the country. Prior to enactment of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the rights of a daughter in her parental property were unknown but this law when codified, gave property rights to daughters also at par with sons. A Hindu woman did not have a coparcenary rights over the ancestral property, hence the rights of woman were abrogated though provided under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the year 2005, the parliament enacted the Hindu Succession Act, 2005 (the 'Amendment Act'), which gave daughters a right to their parent's property for the first time in a codified manner and the discrimination against woman on this count was washed away. This is also called a gender neutral law. Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was amended and it provided following rights to a daughter:-  A daughter becomes a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son.  Have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had id she had been a son.  Be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenary property as that of a son.  The daughter is allotted the same share as it allotted to a son.  The share of pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter, as they would have got had they been alive at the time of partition, shall be allotted to the surviving child of such pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter  The share of the pre-deceased child of a pre-deceased son or of a pre¬-deceased daughter, as such child would have got had he or she been alive at the time of the partition, shall be allotted to the child of such pre-deceased child of the pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter, as the case may be. From the above reading, it is clear that in the ancestral property, the daughter has been treated at par with a son and she has been given equal right to the son. The property which has been acquired by a person on his own and also known as self acquired property, is the property totally in control with that person who has earned it. It is the right of the man to alienate or make a will but if the father dies without a Will, then the self-acquired property is also divided equally amongst the sons and daughters. It is also relevant to note that the marital status of a daughter is of no consequence so far as the rights and liabilities of a daughter is concerned under this act. The recent judgment of Hon’ble supreme court clarified that even married daughters are coparceners in a Hindu Mitakshara Family. Rights of a daughter over Property owned and acquired by her mother is also according to the Hindu Succession Act, and there is no difference since the daughters have the same rights as the sons in their mother's property. No distinction is provided in the Act for married or unmarried daughters, but an important thing to keep in mind is that a married daughter has no right over her mother's property during the lifetime of the mother. There were certain ambiguities in the law enacted by the Parliament which was clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its recent judgment Prakash & Ors. vs. Phulavati & Ors. reported in (2016) 2 Supreme Court Cases 36 wherein it was held “the said amendment act, 2005 did not give any retrospective effect in operation and as such, it will apply only when both the Coparcener and his daughter were alive on the date of the commencement of the said amendment act, i.e., 09-09- 2005 irrespective of the date of birth of the daughter and the coparcener who died thereafter.” Therefore, from the plain reading of the Act and the verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above stated case, it is clear that if a father who is a coparcener and dies before 9th September 2005 (date of the commencement of amendment in the act), then the living daughter of the coparcener would have no right to the parental property and cannot inherit it. The Amendment Act of 2005 will not be applicable in such situations where the coparcener had died before the Act's commencement but this legal pronouncement also was silent on certain issues, therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Danamma vs. Amar Singh reported in (2018) 3 SCC 343, the Supreme Court held that if the father who passed away before 9th September 2005 is a coparcener and there is a prior suit pending regarding partition by a male-coparcener, then the daughter is also entitled to a share in the parent's property. In the case of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma & Ors. Reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1 held that as the right of being a coparcener is by birth for a son and so is it for a daughter post the 2005 Amendment, and even if the father was not alive on 9-9-2005, it does not obstruct a daughter’s right from claiming her share in the coparcenary property.

Share this News