August 11, 2020: In a landmark judgement, the Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that that a daughter is entitled to equal property rights under the amended Hindu Succession Act. The court said daughters will have the right over parental property even if the coparcener had died prior to the coming into force of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.
A three-Judge Bench of Justices Arun Mishra, S Abdul Nazeer and MR Shah held that rights under the amendment are applicable to living daughters of living coparceners as on 9 September 2005, irrespective of when such daughters are born.
In effect, the Court has ruled that the 2005 amendment would have retrospective effect in conferring rights on daughters who were alive at the time of the amendment, even if they were born prior to it. Pronouncing the judgement, Justice Arun Mishra says, "Daughters must be given equal rights as sons, daughter remains a loving daughter throughout life. " Recognizing the importance of conferring equal rights on daughters and sons, Justice Mishra, while reading out the operative part of the judgment said, "Daughters have to be given equal share of coparcenary rights in share of property like the son." The Court held that the appellant would have had coparcenery rights in the property even though her father had passed before the enactment of the amendment.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
August 11, 2020: In a landmark judgement, the Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that that a daughter is entitled to equal property rights under the amended Hindu Succession Act.
August 11, 2020: In a landmark judgement, the Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that that a daughter is entitled to equal property rights under the amended Hindu Succession Act. The court said daughters will have the right over parental property even if the coparcener had died prior to the coming into force of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.
A three-Judge Bench of Justices Arun Mishra, S Abdul Nazeer and MR Shah held that rights under the amendment are applicable to living daughters of living coparceners as on 9 September 2005, irrespective of when such daughters are born.
In effect, the Court has ruled that the 2005 amendment would have retrospective effect in conferring rights on daughters who were alive at the time of the amendment, even if they were born prior to it. Pronouncing the judgement, Justice Arun Mishra says, "Daughters must be given equal rights as sons, daughter remains a loving daughter throughout life. " Recognizing the importance of conferring equal rights on daughters and sons, Justice Mishra, while reading out the operative part of the judgment said, "Daughters have to be given equal share of coparcenary rights in share of property like the son." The Court held that the appellant would have had coparcenery rights in the property even though her father had passed before the enactment of the amendment.