Does the 2005 Amendment Ensure Equal Rights to Daughter in Ancestral Property? SC Explains!

Key Judicial Interpretation

The Supreme Court emphasized that the retrospective effect of the 2005 Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act does not invalidate alienations or dispositions of property that took place before December 20, 2004 (paras 25-26).

Court’s View

The Court held that the High Court was justified in declaring the settlement between the defendants as invalid, and that a valid partition of ancestral property must consider the rights conferred by the 2005 Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act (paras 18-19, 43-44).

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s dismissal of the appellants’ Letters Patent Appeal and affirmed the partition decree, recognizing the ancestral properties and declaring the compromise between the defendants invalid (paras 18-19).

Relevant Acts, Sections, Provisions, and Rules Cited

Sections 6 and 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (as amended in 2005); Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Case of the Appellant

The appellants, legal representatives and heirs of the original defendant No. 1, argued that all properties should be considered ancestral and that the High Court erred in declaring the compromise invalid.

Appellant Relied On

The appellants relied on the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act and various Supreme Court judgments, including Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, to argue that the properties are ancestral and the rights of the defendants were extinguished by the compromise.

Case of the Respondent

The respondents, legal representatives of the original plaintiff and defendant No. 2, argued that the properties included both ancestral and self-acquired properties and that the 2005 Amendment confers equal rights to daughters, invalidating the compromise.

Respondent Relied On

The respondents relied on the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act and the judgment in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, emphasizing equal rights for daughters in ancestral property and the invalidity of the compromise.

Question & Answer

Question: What did the Supreme Court rule regarding the 2005 Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act?
Answer: The Supreme Court ruled that the 2005 Amendment confers equal rights to daughters in ancestral property but does not invalidate alienations or dispositions made before December 20, 2004 (paras 25-26).

Question: Why was the settlement between the defendants declared invalid?
Answer: The settlement was declared invalid because it did not consider the rights conferred by the 2005 Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, which mandates equal partition among heirs (paras 18-19).

Question: How does the 2005 Amendment affect partition of ancestral properties?
Answer: The 2005 Amendment ensures that daughters have equal rights in the partition of ancestral properties, and any partition must account for these rights (paras 43-44).

Question: What is the significance of the Vineeta Sharma case in this context?
Answer: The Vineeta Sharma case clarified that the 2005 Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act is retroactive, conferring equal rights to daughters in ancestral properties, which affects how partitions are to be conducted (paras 64-67).

Question: What was the Supreme Court’s final decision in the Prasanta Kumar Sahoo case?
Answer: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, affirming the partition decree and invalidating the compromise between the defendants, thereby recognizing the ancestral properties and the equal rights conferred by the 2005 Amendment (paras 18-19).

Details of Case

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala
Date of Order: March 29, 2023
Case Name: Prasanta Kumar Sahoo & Ors. vs. Charulata Sahu & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. 2913-2915 of 2018