Will the rights conferred to the daughters by the recent SC
ruling only be limited to natural born daughters or be extendable to adopted
daughters as well and more
The Supreme Court, on
August 11, delivered a landmark judgment in the case of Vineeta Sharma v.
Rakesh Sharma by providing equal coparcenary rights to daughters as similar to
the sons in the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) properties. This ruling will have an
impact on the present and future estate and succession planning for HUFs.
Here’s what you need to know about the judgment.
1.How does the recent
judgment impact the current position of coparcenary right of daughters in HUF
properties?
Daughter’s rights have
been enlarged by virtue of the recent judgment of the apex court. Daughters
will now have equal coparcenary rights in HUF properties even if they were born
before the 2005 amendment to The Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The coparcenary
right of a daughter shall not be affected even if her coparcener father demised
prior to the 2005 amendment to HSA. The rights and liabilities of a coparcener
son and a coparcener daughter shall henceforth, be on equal footing under the HSA.
2. What was the position
of coparcenary right of daughters prior to the 2005 amendment to HSA?Prior to the Hindu
Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 daughters had no claim in the ancestral
property of their family. Earlier, coparcenary property was confined only to
the male members of the family. On the death of a male Hindu, the interest in
the ancestral property devolved by survivorship upon surviving members of the
coparcenary. Post 2005 amendment, daughter’s born or adopted on or after
September 9, 2005 were to be considered as a coparcener in the ancestral
property and were provided with the same rights and liabilities as conferred to
a coparcener son under the HSA.
3.
Will the rights conferred to the daughters by the recent SC ruling would only be
applicable for inheritance of coparcenary property or are they extendable to
self-acquired properties of their father?
The coparcenary rights
conferred to daughters by the recent SC ruling would only be applicable for
inheritance of the coparcenary property. As regards to the rights of a daughter
in the self-acquired property of her father, the provisions of HSA shall
continue to govern.
The self-acquired property of the father would devolve either by testamentary
succession or intestate succession. If a father executes a valid will as to
whom the property should be bequeathed on his death, it is referred to as
testamentary succession. In the absence of a valid will, the property of the
father shall pass to his legal heirs by laws of intestate succession. In case
of intestate succession, daughters have an equal right to father’s property as
a son.
4.Whether coparcenary
right of a daughter would continue to subsist in the event of her getting
married?
The coparcenary right
will continue to remain with the daughter regardless of her marital status.
5.What are conditions on
which the plea of oral partition of coparcenary property would be considered as
valid by the court?
In accordance with the
SC ruling, only in exceptional cases the plea of oral partition of coparcenary
property may be considered as valid. An oral partition may be accepted to be
valid if supported by public documents which should manifest the same effect as
that of a decree passed by a court. Keeping in view the provisions of HSA, SC held
that plea of partition based on oral evidence alone will not be accepted by the
court.
6.Is a daughter entitled
to claim partition of the HUF property on her father’s death?
A daughter being a
coparcener enjoys the right to claim partition. By the enforcement of 2005
amendment to HSA, a daughter is entitled to claim partition of HUF property.
7.Whether
partitions/dispositions, alienations of property occurred before the 2005 amendment
in HSA can be reopened by a daughter?
As per the SC
judgment, the conferment of equal coparcenary rights to daughters will have no
effect on the partitions/dispositions and alienations concluded or taken place
before December 20, 2004 and such partitions or testamentary dispositions
cannot be reopened by a coparcenary daughter.
8
What should happen in cases where grandfathers or fathers bought properties in
the name of their wives or daughters to save tax?
Under the provisions
of HSA, a woman’s property includes all properties (movable or immovable)
obtained through inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of
maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a
relative or not, before, at or after her marriage and also covers her
self-acquired property. Therefore, any property bought in her name would be
construed as a gift to her and shall devolve as per rules of succession
prescribed for Hindu women under succession laws.
9.Whether by virtue of
this ruling, daughter, grand-daughter or great granddaughter will be equally
bound to follow the obligation under the Hindu Law to discharge any such debt
and can be sued by a creditor against debt contracted prior to the 2005
amendment to HSA?
After the enforcement
of 2005 amendment to HSA, courts do not have the power to proceed against a
son, grandson or great grandson (born or adopted prior to 2005 amendment) for
the recovery of any debt due from his father, grandfather or great-grandfather
on the ground of pious obligation under Hindu Law or to discharge the aforesaid
debt.
However, any debt accrued towards obligation before the commencement of the
2005 amendment is liable to be discharged by a son, grandson or great grandson
against the claim raised by any creditor.
By the virtue of the SC ruling, daughter, granddaughter or great granddaughter
will now be equally bound to follow the pious obligation under the Hindu Law
and discharge debt in relation to it. The liability of any debt accrued towards
pious obligation or claim by a creditor before the commencement of 2005
amendment can be raised against such daughter, grand-daughter or great
granddaughter.
10
Whether the coparcenary right conferred to daughters by the recent ruling would
only be limited to natural born daughters or be extendable to adopted
daughters?
The
coparcenary rights conferred to daughters by the recent ruling is applicable to
both naturally born and adopted daughters regardless of them being born or
adopted prior to 2005 amendment to HSA.
The author is Senior Partner, ZEUS Law, a corporate commercial
law firm. One of its areas of specialization is real estate advisory and
litigation practice.
First Published on Aug
20, 2020 01:55 pm
No comments:
Post a Comment