Daughter’s Right in Coparcenary by Birth: Inheritance Rights
“Equal Rights of women in ancestral property”
Earlier in 1956 the Hindu Succession Act came into force wherein males were the coparceners up to 3 generations and women were not recognized as coparceners. In 2005 when the amendment was made to section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act the rule of survivorship was abrogated and the daughters were left unrecognized as coparceners again.
“Daughters can claim her right in ancestral property”
In 2016 in the case of Prakash v. Phulwati court dealt with the question of retrospective application of section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. Therefore the Amendment Act of 2005 is applicable only from 09-09-2005. Contention was raised by the respondent that daughter acquire right in her father’s property by birth irrespective of the date of the death of the father. Supreme Court rejected the contention stating that Amendment Act, 2005 is applicable from 09-09-2005 and if the death of the coparcener in question is after the said date i.e. 09-09-2005, the provisions of the Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005 will be applicable. Therefore the daughter of the coparcener has the right in coparcenary property if the father is alive on 09-09-2005 i.e. when the amendment was enforced. It was also contended that the Amendment Act 2005 is not retrospective but retroactive in operation since it enables the daughters to exercise their coparcenary rights on the commencement of the Amendment act. Section 6 is not retrospective in operation said by the Court. Prakash v. Phulwati, 2016 2 SCC 36
Daughter’s coparcenary right- In another case of Danamma v. Amar in 2018 court dealt with the similar question as stated in Phulvati’s case. In this case the father passed prior to coming into force of the Amendment Act. The Act was came into force in 2005 however the father was died in 2001, leaving behind a widow, two sons and two daughters. Supreme Court held that daughters will get equal shares even if the father had died earlier to the enforcement of Amendment Act, 2005. It was held that the amendment provisions of section 6 confer full rights upon the daughter coparcener. Danamma @ suman surpur v. Amar, 2018 3 SCC 343
“Daughters have given equal rights as son”
Section 6 of the Act is prospective- In Vineeta Sharma’s case court dealt with the interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.
On August 11th 2020 the Supreme Court of India has decided that daughters have right in coparcenary by birth and the rights are given in the same manner with incidents of coparcenary as that of son and she is treated as a coparcener in the same manner with the same rights as if she had been a son at the time of birth. Further it was said that women has equal rights in ancestral property as son even if the father is not alive on September 09, 2005 (Amendment Act) i.e. when the amendment was came into force. It clearly indicates that a daughter can claim her right earlier from the 09-09-2005. Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, 2020 SCC SC 641
Validity of PM CARES FUND
On August 18, 2020 the Supreme Court of India has rejected the petition seeking transfer the money deposited to PM Cares Fund. Court said that money deposited to the PM Cares Fund not to be transferred to the National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF).
Earlier in this case the petition was filed by the NGO i.e. Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL). The very purpose to file the petition is to provide for the assistance in fight against Covid-19 and all the contributions/grants from individuals/institutions be credited in NDRF and not to PM CARES Fund and all funds collected in PM CARES Fund till date should be directed to be transferred to NDRF.
National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF) was created under section 46 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and is a statutory created fund whereas, the PM CARES is a body owned by the Appropriate Government and it consists of private donations and not public funds.
Now, National Disaster Response Fund has nothing to do with PM CARES Fund. Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, WRIT Petition (CIVIL) NO.546 OF 2020
Appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
On August 21, 2020 it is observed by the Supreme Court that the stranger is not permitted to file an Appeal under section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code if he/she is not the aggrieved person. Section 96 of the Code prefers an Appeal from Original Decree. Further it was stated by the court that the Appellant must satisfy the court that he falls within the category of aggrieved person and just judicially affected by the decree or order. V. N. Krishnamurthy v. Ravikumar, Civil Appeal No. 2701-2704 OF 2020
In 2011, in the case of Subash babu, the expression “aggrieved person” denotes an elastic and an elusive concept. It cannot be confined within the bounds of a rigid, exact and comprehensive definition. Its scope and meaning depends on diverse, variable factors such as the content and intent of the statute of which contravention is alleged, the specific circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of complainant’s interest and the nature and the extent of the prejudice or injury suffered by the complainant. A. Subash Babu v.State of A.P. & Anr, 2011 7 SCC 616
