#HinduSuccessionAct(Amended2005)

[seemabhatnagar]

The son and the daughter are equally entitled to inherit a share of the property by birth as coparceners.

Yagnaseni Patel v. The GM Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. & others

WP No. 28534/2020 before Hon’ble Orissa High Court

U/A 226 & 227 of Constitution of India

Writ Petition Allowed on 22.06.2023

By Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. B R Sarangi J & Hon’ble Mr. Justice M S Raman J

Background

This is a case where daughters claim equal share in the property of their late father. After the death of the father petitioner’s 03 brothers got property mutated in their name in the Revenue Record. Petitioner and her 02 other sister filed Mutation Appeal before Sub Collector, Sundargarh. Sub-Collector directed Tehsildar to record the name of 03 sisters in the Record of Rights (RoR). Name was recorded in RoR along with their 03 brothers. Daughter’s than claimed equal share in the property before Claim Commission being daughter of the Coparcener are entitled to get equal share as that of her brothers irrespective of the date of death of her father. Brothers disputed on the basis of the Judgment of the Supreme Court namely Prakash and others v. Phulabati and others & Mangammal @ Thulasi and another v. T.B. Raju and others. In these cases, it was held by the SC that daughters are not entitled to get the benefit being not the co-sharer. Claim Commission decided the matter against the petitioner on 04.01.2020.

Contention of the Petitioner

Judgment, basing upon which the Claims Commission decided the matter, had been referred to the Larger Bench and the Larger Bench decided the same in the case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma and others, 2020 (II) OLR (SC) 569, which was in favor of the petitioner.

Being daughter of the Late Kulamani Patel stand on the same footing as are the sons.

In view of the decision of the larger Bench in the case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma and others, the decision of the Claim Commission is not sustainable and it be quashed.

Contention of the Respondent’s

Since the parties (Petitioner Daughter) approached the Claims Commission for adjudication of the matter and the same was decided on the basis of the law applicable at the relevant point of time. Wherefore, the present Writ Petition be dismissed.

 Writ Court exercising a limited supervisory jurisdiction constitutionally vested under Article 227 should abhor to undertake a deeper examination in such matters.

Hindu Law & Amendment in Hindu Law (2005)

In Hindu Law Succession of property in a Hindu Undivided Family is governed by two schools of law 1. Mitakshara 2. Dayabhaga. Mitakshara entitles a son to a right equal to his father in the joint family property by birth.

All the male descendants of a Hindu in the male line up to the fourth degree of generation are his sons. The adopted child also gets a right equal to the right of his adoptive father in the joint family property from the date of adoption. The daughter is not given a right by birth in the joint family property.

The Parliament, being inspired by the amendments in four States namely Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra & Karnataka, passed The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 for the whole of India.

The amendment is that even in a joint family governed by the Mitakshara law the daughter of a coparcener is made as good a coparcener as a son. She has the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son. She has a right to agitate in respect of her share in the joint family property.

Decision of Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in re Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma and others.

 The finding of the apex Court (Prakash and others v. Phulabati and others & Mangammal @ Thulasi and another v. T.B. Raju) that daughters are not entitled to get the benefit of equal share being co-sharers in the ancestral property, no more remains res integra in view of the Larger Bench judgment of the apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma and others.

In the case of Vineeta Sharma, Section 6(1) of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 was under consideration and a question was framed “does the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, which gave equal right to daughters in ancestral property, have a retrospective effect”.

The Apex Court, answered the same in affirmative, held that daughter shall remain as coparcener (one who shares equally with others in inheritance of an undivided joint family property) throughout life, regardless of the question as to whether her father was alive when the law was amended in 2005 or not

Sons and daughters of a coparcener become coparceners by virtue of birth.

Observation of the Orissa High Court

In view of the decision dt. 11.08.2020 of the Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma and others., Claims Commission has committed error apparent on the face of the record by passing the order impugned denying benefit to the daughter.

The earlier judgement of the Supreme Court namely Prakash and others v. Phulabati and others & Mangammal @ Thulasi and another v. T.B. Raju has no effect in view of the subsequent decision of the Larger Bench.

The daughter has a right to get the property of her father from the date the Amendment Act came into force.

Decision

The Writ Petition was allowed and the order dated 04.01.2020 passed by Claims is not sustainable in the eye of law and was quashed. However, the matter was remitted back to the Claims Commission for re-adjudication.

Seema Bhatnagar

#HinduSuccessionAct(Amended2005) #hinduundividedfamily #mitaksharaschooloflaw #dayabhagaschooloflaw #coparcener #rightbybirth #supremecourtofindia #orissahighcourt #claimcommission #recordofrights #mutation #mutationappeal #writpetition #inheritance