Daughter is also entitled to ancestral property

The Supreme Court in its important judgment, while interpreting the Hindu Succession Act, has said that the daughter cannot be denied equal rights on ancestral property. The daughter is as much a participant in the property of the Hindu undivided family as the son. Whether the daughter is born before or after the amendment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, she has the same right as the son. This amendment took place in 2005. It does not matter whether the father was alive at the time the law was amended.

The issue before the court was also that the amended law was before the amendment shall apply or since amended. The Supreme Court, in its judgment on Tuesday, has said that even a daughter born before the date of enactment of September 9, 2005, can claim rights over the property. The only condition is that the property be sold, will or by any legal bond before December 20, 2004 The other has not been terminated in any way. A bench of Justices Arun Mishra, S. Abdul Nazir, and MR Shah said in the judgment since the daughter inherits property over birth.

Therefore, the father does not have to be alive on the date the amended law comes into force. It has also been clarified in the judgment that the oral arguments of the division of property cannot be accepted. According to Section 6 (5) of the law, the property should be distributed through the Deed registered under the Registration Act or by a court decree. In the case of crime, the property sharing arguments can be accepted based on proof of other supporting documents.

Explaining the Hindu Succession Amendment Act to give daughters the right of ancestral property, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court had earlier said in the Prakash v. Phoolmati case that section 6 of the amended law would not be applicable from the former. The court said that this section will be applicable only if both father and daughter are alive on the date of amendment of the law. On Tuesday, a three-judge bench disagreed with the arrangement given in the judgment of Prakash vs Phoolmati in the judgment of Rakesh Sharma, named Vinita Sharma, stating that he did not agree with the father's survival on the date of the law amendment. Section 6 (1) (a) of the law gives birthrights to the daughter over the property.

In the previous Dhanamma judgment, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court had said that daughters are given full rights over the property like other participants in the law. Like other partners, the daughter can also ask for property division. In the latest judgment, the Supreme Court has given this ruling while clarifying the system related to the law of punishments on the ancestral property of daughters in the Hindu undivided family. The court has said that daughters cannot be deprived of their right to property as provided in law.