Sagar Suryawanshi Advocate has been one such prominent figure of the Indian Law system, who has always fought for what is right and has always encouraged the common floor to come up for their rights. As an advocate, Sagar Suryawanshi has always voiced out suggestions and measures to correct the loopholes in the Indian Law system. Based on the same fact today we will talk about a daughter’s right to the property. The discussion about the daughter’s right to property has been in the limelight for quite a time now and quite recently, a very important judgement was passed by the supreme court about the same. In today’s article, we will discuss the same. But, before we know more about this daughter’s right to her father’s property, let’s first understand about Hindu succession act.
What is the Hindu Succession Act?
The Hindu succession act was introduced in 1956. Its main objective was to govern succession and inheritance. This act defines who will inherit the property and which family member will inherit what proportion of the property. The succession act applies to Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains. As per this act, the property is mainly of two types namely self-acquired and coparcenary property.
As the name says, self-acquired simply means that if you have purchased a property with your own money, then it comes under the category of self-acquired property. Whereas coparcenary property simply means ancestral property.
What is the survivorship Rule?
Now, ways to divide the property depends upon the type of property. As per the succession act, you can divide your acquired property as per your will. But, the ancestral property was to be divided as per the Hindu succession act only.
What is the 2005 amendment?
Before in the case of coparcenary property, only male children were considered as coparceners. This means that only boys birth the right to inherit their ancestral property. But, this succession act of 1956 was amended in 2005 and this amendment introduced the long-awaited change of including female children as coparceners in the inherited property.
The amendment of 2005 also ruled out the survivorship rule and introduced testamentary succession and intestate succession. This amendment gave equal rights to daughters in the father’s property. This amendment was enforced from 9.09.2005
As per this succession, you can create a will for your self acquired property, and accordingly, you can give your property to anyone. This division of property can be done between your family members or you can even give your property to any random person as per your wish.
This one is applicable for those cases, where a person dies without creating any will. Also, this succession talks about the division of ancestral property. In the case of Intestate Succession, as per the 2005 amendment act if a person has died, then the first right to the ancestral property, lies with the son, daughter and widow/husband. The property will be divided equally between these three.
Problems associated with the 2005 Amendment:-
Just like any other rule, this one also came with its own set of problems. As mentioned earlier, the 2005 amendment came into the picture on 9.9.2005. Now, the major problem revolving around this act was, if till this particular date is it mandatory for the father to remain alive. The answer to this question was given after the judgement was passed for two cases. The three cases are listed below:-
Prakash Vs. Phulwati:- This case came in the year 2026. In this case, the bench consisted of Justice Anil Dave and Justice A.K Goyal. In this case, the supreme court said that the father should be alive as of 9.9.2005. And, the right will be given to the loving daughter of the living coparcener.
Sanam Vs Amar Case:- This case came in the year 2018. The bench, in this case, consisted of Justice A.K Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan. In this case, the supreme court said that even if the father was not alive when the 2005 amendment came in, then also the daughter will get the property right.
Now, both of these judgments were conflicting therefore it became quite difficult to understand which one to follow. This confusion was further resolved by the most recent case of Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma.
Vineeta Sharma Vs Rakesh Sharma:- This case came in the year 2020. This case had the bench of three judges namely Justice Arun Mishra, Justice Abdul Nazeer and Justice M. R Shah. In this court, the supreme court very clearly mentioned that just like sons a daughter’s right to property is also ancestral. This right is independent of whether the father is alive or not.
A daughter’s right to property is her birthright and gives her a sense of equality and security in society.