Like sons, daughters will get the same right to ancestral property at birth. Understand in 10 points what is the verdict of the Supreme Court?

• The amended law raised the question of whether daughters would be entitled to patrimonial property even if the father died before 2005.

The Supreme Court has delivered a landmark judgment on the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The court said that even if the father died before November 9, 2005, the daughters have an equal right to ancestral property. The Hindu Succession Act came into force in 1956. It was replaced in 2005. The daughters were also made partners in the paternal property by making changes in its section 6.

The question was raised on the amended law that even if the father died before 2005, the daughter would get the right to the father's property? The apex court had given different judgments in two benches. This led to a state of confusion. A three-judge bench headed by Justice Mishra on Tuesday ruled in the case.

Understand in 10 points what was the case and what is the verdict of the Supreme Court?

1. The Supreme Court had given two different judgments in the case of Prakash v. Fulvati (2016) and Danamma v. Amar (2018). In a 2016 judgment, a bench of Justices Anil R Dave and AK Goyal said that only the surviving daughters of a surviving co-partner (partner) of September 9, 2005 would be entitled. In the 2018 case, a bench of Justice AK Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan had said that even if the father died in 2001, both the daughters would be entitled to ancestral property.
2. Justice Pratibha M Singh of the Delhi High Court referred to both the judgments of the Supreme Court dated May 15, 2018 in the case of Vinita Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma and put forward this contradiction. The case against Prakash was dismissed as appropriate but the Supreme Court allowed the appeal / certificate to file an appeal so that the legal status could be clarified.
3. That is why the case reached the Supreme Court. Earlier, the two verdicts were heard by a two-judge bench. So this time it became a three-judge bench. Justice Arun Mishra, Justice Abdul Nazir and Justice MR Shah delivered the verdict on Tuesday.
4. In fact it was necessary to know the intention of the government to clarify the matter. Therefore, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also appeared from the Central Government. He said that he has been made a co-partner only to give daughters the same rights as sons. If they don't get rights, it will be like depriving them of their basic rights.
5. The central government also told the court that amendments to the law in 2005 were not retrospective but retroactive. This means that its provisions will take effect before the amended law comes into force. The right of the co-partner is acquired from the birth of the daughter, but the co-coronary is his birthright.
6. It was also clarified that the amended bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on 20 December 2004. This means that the division of ancestral property that took place earlier will not be affected by the amended law. The Supreme Court has also accepted these arguments.
7. The Center argued that the amended law of September 9, 2005 came into force and with it the daughters also became co-partners from birth. The rights and obligations of the sons regarding the co-partner's property will also belong to the daughters.
8. In this case, it is important to know that the Hindu Succession Act came into force in India in 1956. Before that, everything was decided by acronyms. It is Vijnaneshwar's critique of the Yajnavalkya Smriti which was composed in the 11th century. This scripture is famous for the doctrine of inheritance of birth. According to the acronyms, each person gets a share in the property of the father's joint family at birth. Daughters have also come under its purview since 2005.
9. A co-partner is a person who becomes a partner in the joint family property from birth. The basic difference between a co-partner and a member in a Hindu undivided family is that the co-partner can push for a right to ancestral property but not a member. Before the law was amended in 2005, daughters were called family members, not co-partners. It is also clear that the wife or daughter-in-law may be a member of the family, but not a co-partner.
10. Supreme Court Justice Arun Mishra said in the judgment that daughters should have the same rights as sons. The daughter will always be the same partner, whether her father is alive or dead. A three-judge bench heard several petitions. The petition said that in the amended law, daughters have equal rights in inheritance.

CLICK HERE FOR NEWS REPORT IN GUJARATI