Several appeals on the issue of retrospective effect of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act was filed before the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court. In one of the cases, One Ms. Vineeta Sharma (Appellant) filed a case against her two brothers viz. Mr. Rakesh Sharma & Satyendra Sharma, and her mother (Respondents). Sh. Dev Dutt Sharma (Father) had three sons, one daughter and a wife. \u00a0He expired on December 11, 1999. One of his sons expired on July 1, 2001 (unmarried). The Appellant claimed that being the daughter she was entitled to \u00bc th share in the property of her father. The case of the Respondents was that after her marriage, she ceased to be a member of the Joint family. The Hon\u2019ble High Court disposed off the appeal as the amendments of 2005 did not benefit the Appellant as the father of the Appellant passed away on December 11, 1999.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
The Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court held that the provisions contained in substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confer status of coparcener on the daughter born before or after amendment in the same manner as son with same rights and liabilities. Since the right in coparcenary is by birth, it is not necessary that father coparcener should be living as on 9.9.2005 (date of amendment). (CA No. ___Diary No. 32601 of 2018\u00a0 dt \u00a011.08.2020)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Hindu Succession Act, 1956
\nS. 6: Equal right of a daughter in HUF \u2013 Devolution of interest in coparcenary property – Confers status of coparcener on daughters, even if born prior to the amendment, with effect from 9.9. 2005 \u2013 Amendment is retrospective. [ Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 ] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12002","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allied-laws"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-37A","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12002","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12002"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12002\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":15281,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12002\/revisions\/15281"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12002"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12002"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12002"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}