The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Act of 1956) was enacted to amend and codify laws concerning intestate succession among Hindus and caused changes with reference to succession and also conferred on women certain rights which until then wasn't alive. Further, the Act of 1956 also acknowledged, under Section 6, the special right of male coparceners of a Hindu Coparcenary to inherit by birth over the coparcenary property and laid down rules for succession among the coparceners. This, however, was discriminatory in terms of gender and also the negation of the constitutional right of equality, thus far because the daughter of a coparcener was concerned. so as to try to away with discrimination, the Parliament passed the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005 (Act of 2005), which came into effect from 09.09.2005, whereby Section 6 of the Act of 1956 was substituted and recognized the daughter of a coparcener to get on par thereupon of a son, and conferred on her rights by birth on the coparcenary property, however, with a proviso that conferment of such right a daughter shall not affect or invalidate any disposition or alienation, partition or testamentary disposition of property happened before 20.12.2004. After the amendment Act of 2005 -
1. Prakash & Others Vs. Phulavati & Others, (2016) 2 SCC 36 - Division bench = The Act of 2005 is prospective in nature which rights conferred on daughter, under Section 6 of the Act of 2005, is on the living daughter of a living coparcener, requiring the coparcener to be alive as on 09.09.2005 so on enable the daughter to say rights over the coparcenary property. within the said case, the coparcener had died before the 2005 amendment and hence, it had been held that the daughter isn't entitled to a share within the coparcenary property as she isn't the daughter of a living coparcener.
2. Danamma @ Suman Surpur & Another Vs. Amar & Others, (2018) 3 SCC 343 - Division bench = The Court didn't specifically affect the concept of living daughter of a living coparcener, the Court took a contradicting view from that of the decision in the Phulavati case and held that daughters have equal rights within the coparcenary property as that of a son, albeit the coparcener had died before the amendment of 2005.
Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Others
The Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to the issues of the above mentioned two decisions, i.e., the Phulavati case and Danamma case, to a larger bench of three judges.
Issues & Reasoning -