After the independence, the first law pertaining to the property under Hindu law was Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Act dealt with intestate succession, rights, duties of sons’, daughters’ etc. It provided a detailed framework on the inheritance of sons, daughters etc. Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, has gone through a series of development over the years. 

Section 6 as per Hindu Succession Act,1956:

Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 provides for devolution of property of intestate succession. It provided that the property shall be devolved on male coparceners who have interest in the coparcenary property, such interest in the male coparceners was only limited till three degrees i.e male son, grand son and great grand-son. The interest is devolved by way of survivorship. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 specifically excluded females from acquiring any share on interest in the property, the wife was not considered as a direct blood line of the deceased.

Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 after 2005 Amendment:

The 1956 Act was amended in 2005 and a major change bought in the amendment was in Section 6 which aimed to remove the gender bias. Section 6 of 2005 Amendment Act provided for equal rights of both sons and daughters as they both are coparceners. The Mitakshara coparcener liabilities would be equally applicable on daughter. The Act was made applicable to three degrees of female coparceners as well – daughters, grand-daughters, great grand-daughters. Thus, Section 6 aimed at giving equal rights to daughters as coparceners as sons have.

Conflicting opinions in regard to Section 6:

Prakash & Ors. v. Phulavati & Ors^[1]

In the present case, the daughter claimed for an equal share in her father’s property as a coparcener and father had died prior to the commencement of the Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005. There was a dispute regarding self-acquired property and ancestral property and its retrospective or prospective application. Here, the main issue was whether the Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005 will be applied retrospectively or not?  

The Apex Court differed from the decision of High Court and Trail Court and placed reliance on unless the statute expressly states the retrospective applicability, it is implied that the statute is applied prospectively.^[2] The Apex Court stated that as per the notional partition the shares were already allotted under Hindu Succession Act, 1956, herein termed as Principal Act and the same could not be taken away by way of an amendment i.e Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005. The Court rejected the contention of the Respondent that as it was a social legislation aimed at removing the inequalities between male and female, it should be applied retrospectively. The Supreme Court expressly stated that the social legislation also cannot be given retrospective application unless provided expressly in the statute. It stated that the Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005 will be applicable to ‘living daughters and living coparceners as on 9-9-2005, irrespective of when such daughters were born’ and all the partitions wherein the coparcener has passed away before 9-9-2005, the living daughter will not be entitled to her share in the property.

Danamma @ Suman Surpur vs Amar^[3]

In the present case, there was a dispute as to whether the Appellants (daughters) were entitled to equal share in the property as they were born prior to the enactment of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 or not? 

The Trial Court and High Court rejected the application of the Appellant and stated that she was not entitled to share in the property as she was born prior to the enactment of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the original coparcener had died prior to the Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005. A Special Leave Petition challenging the order was filed before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court differed from the judgment passed by Trial Court and High Court. It stated that the original coparcener had died in the year 2001, the suit for partition was filed in the year 2002 and the decree by Trial Court was awarded in the year 2007.During the pendency of the suit the Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005 was passed which conferred the status of coparcener to daughter as well and her rights and liabilities were equated to those granted to the son. Thus, the Supreme Court explicitly deliberated that the amendment is applied to the present case as the partition was given affect after the decree passed by lower court in 2007. 

Conflicting interpretations by the Courts with respect to Section 6 gave rise to ambiguities. Danamma’s case failed to delve upon the actual issue of the case and passed a decision in conflict to the previous decision upheld in Phulwati. The date of partition being taken into consideration is not relevant in the present scenario as the issue is whether daughter is entitled to the share if her father passes away before 9-9-2005. In Phulwati’s case, the Supreme Court had fixed a cut-off date that if the father is alive as on 9-9-2005, then the living coparcener (daughter) will be entitled to the share in the property and subsequently will have to forgo her share if the father passes away as on 9-9-2005 or before that. The divergent legal opinions passed in the above two cases created unnecessary ambiguity with respect to the interpretation of Section 6 of Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005.

Historic Judgment: Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma (11^th August 2020)

The question with respect to ambiguous interpretations of Section 6 is addressed to a larger bench as it involved similar issues with conflicting previous judgments. The three judge-bench of the Supreme Court stated the following:

• The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that it is not necessary for the daughter and the coparcener to be alive as on the date of amendment i.e 9-9-2005. By fixing a cut-off date it will defeat the purpose of amendment as the main objective behind amendment was to grant equal rights to daughters as granted to sons. Irrespective of whether the original coparcener is alive as on 9-9-2005 or not the daughter is entitled to claim an equal share in the property
• With respect to prospective and retrospective application, the Court stated that the prospective statute operates from the date of its enactment conferring/granting new rights while the retrospective statute operates backwards taking away vested rights. It stated that Section 6 would be a retroactive statute, the one that operates in futuro, its operation is based upon an event which happened in the past, the antecedent event as per Section 6 is the right being given by birth hence, it confers rights to daughters at the time of their birth even if the birth takes place prior to the Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005.

Thus, the recent judgment by Supreme Court takes a laudable step thereby ending the gender injustice and implements Section 6 amendment of 2005 in its true spirit. It further puts an end to various divergent opinions by different Courts.

^[1] (2016) 1 SCC (Civ) 549

^[2] Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8SCC 24.

^[3] (2018)3SCC 343

The post Brief background of Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 appeared first on LexForti .

Kalindi Damodar Garde Vs. Manohar Laxman Kulkarni

Facts:

Laxman was adopted by Saraswati along with his three sons Gangadhar, Dattatraya and Manohar in 1935. After the adoption, Kalindi (daughter) was born to Laxman and his wife. When the natural father of Laxman effected partition, he was excluded from the property of his natural father as he was gone to Saraswati in adoption. Subsequently, Saraswati died and Laxman inherited the property of Saraswati and this forms the subject matter of the present dispute. However, after the death of Laxman there was a dispute on the question of property between his sons and daughter. Kalindi had applied for mutation of revenue records and including herself as her mother as owners which was disputed by Manohar at various stages. After the death of Padmavati, she had left her property in the name of her sons. Thus, Dattatraya filed a suit for partition, separate possession and mesne profit against forcible possession by Kalindi. 

Issue:

Whether Laxman’s sons (Gangadhar, Dattatraya and Manohar) who were born prior to the date of adoption are entitled to the share in the property in dispute according to Hindu Succession Act, 1956?

Rules/Statues:

In the present case, the following provisions are involved:

Definitions:

3(a) agnates: one person is said to be an agnate of another if the two are related by blood or adoption wholly through males;

3(c) cognates: one person is said to be a cognate of another if the two are related by blood or adoption but not wholly through males;

Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956:

Overriding effect of Act. – Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act:

(a) any text rule or interpretation of Hindu law or any custom or usage as part of that law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect with respect to any matter for which provision is made in this Act;

(b) any other law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect in so far as it is inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in this Act.

Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956:

The property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the following provisions:

(a) firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class I of the Schedule; (b) secondly, if there is no heir of class I, then upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class II of the Schedule; (c) thirdly, if them is no heir of any of the two classes, then upon the agnates of the deceased; and (d) lastly, if there is no agnate, then upon the cognates of the deceased.

Analysis:

The Court rejected the interpretation of Hindu law as laid down in “Kalgavda Tavanappa Patil v. Somappa Tamangavda Patil & Anr”^[1] which stated that the children that are born before the respective adoption will not pass with the adoptee in the adopted family and thereby will not be entitled to any share in the property of the adopted family. It was stated that the situation has evolved over the years and has led to a significant transformation with the enactment of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The present act nullifies all the text, rule, interpretation of the Hindu law or any custom or usage which was prevalent before the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act^[2], by way of Section 4. 

The Court also observed that it is a settled principle that as succession has opened after the commencement of the said Act, it should be done in conformity with the provisions of the said Act^[3] and not according to Hindu law, custom, usage etc. The Court also stated that Laxman’s sons (Gangadhar, Dattatraya and Manohar) and daughter (Kalindi) are agnates and related by full-blood as per Section 3(a) of the Act, they form Class 1 heirs.

Thus, Supreme Court emphasized that when there are was no restriction specifically denying the rights of natural son to the adoptee father, it concluded that in conformity with the Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act,1956 the son born before the date of adoption will not be denied his right of inheritance.

Conclusion:

With the evolution over the years, the Court has taken a modern liberal view in delving upon the question of inheritance of the natural son of an adoptee father. It can rightly be said that the Court has made a paradigmatic shift overriding Hindu customs and giving preference to the proposed enactment. With the absence of any specific restriction on denial of rights to the respective sons, it can be concluded that a just and fair interpretation has been made in this regard. Thus, there is no distinction made between the son born to a father before adoption or after adoption. 

^[1] 3 Ind Cas 809

[2] Bhaiya Ramanuj Pratap Deo v. Lalu Maheshanuj Pratap Deo (1981) 4 SCC 613

^[3] Bhanwar Singh v. Puran & Ors (2008) 3 SCC 87

The post Whether the son born to the adoptee father prior to the date of adoption is entitled to the property? appeared first on LexForti .