WELCOME TO AASHAYEIN LAW EDUCATION CENTER

  • C-118, First Floor Zone-II, Maharana Pratap Nagar, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462011

  • +91 9691073595 Office, Bhopal

ALEC for Judicial Services Examination

Danamma @ Suman Surpur v. Amar (2018)

(Landmark)

Danamma @ Suman Surpur

v.

Amar (2018)

Backdrop of the Case-

  • The present case is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court who while upholding the decision of the Trial Court, refused to hold the appellants as Coparceners due to being born before the date of the enactment of the Act. The appellants being the two daughters of Mr. Gurulingappa Savadi.
  • The other parties are two sons and wife, namely Arun, Vijay and Sumitra respectively. The suit of partition was filed by Amar (Arun’s son) on July 01, 2002. The appellants were not treated as Coparceners due to the two major reasons as stated in the plaint.
  • Firstly, due to them being born prior to the enactment of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and;
  • Secondly, them being married as a consequence have relinquished their right to inherit their property as their share has already been given to them as their dowry.
  • The major contentions of the appellants consisted that they should be given share in the property due to the fact that the Mr. Gurulingappa Savadi had died after the enactment of the Act of 1950. During the pendency of the partition suit the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 came into force which secured the rights of the appellants. Both the Trial Court and High Court ruled against the appellants therefore they approached the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.

 

Issue- whether the Appellants would be entitled as Coparceners By birth at par with the sons and therefore be entitled to equal share as the sons do?

  • Design- The Hon’ble Court analyzed the affect of Section 6 both pre and post amendment of the year 2005 as brought to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It set aside the findings as propounded by the High Court and further stated that the amendments brought to the Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 were undoubtedly in the favor of Appellant.
  • The amendment gave the daughters an inherent right and the status of coparcener since birth at par with their male counterparts. The Court categorically stated that the Amended Act applies to living daughters of living coparceners with respect to the date of the Act coming into the force.

 

Analysis of the decision of the court-

  • In the present case, after the death of the original coparcener in 2001 and thereafter the partition proceedings were initiated in the year 2002. No share was given to the appellants due to the fact that their father passed away before the enforcement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.
  • The decision by the Trial Court and High Court was given on the lines of precedent laid down in the latest landmark judgment of Prakash v. Phulavati and thus the appellants were not granted share in the coparcenary property. The Apex Court while dealing with the present case though upheld the decision as propounded by the Supreme Court but successfully granted the appellants their share in the property.
  • The Section 6 of the HSA, 1956 as before the amendment stipulated that if any coparcener dies leaving any female relative as per Class I of Schedule to the Act, his interest will delve through intestate succession and not by the way of survivorship.
  • The Court further in order to determine the effect of the Amendment being retrospective or prospective analyzed its judgment and the text of the Act and propounded that they both held the amendment to be having a prospective effect.
  • It further stipulated that a daughter would be treated as coparcener since birth at par with her male counterparts and she is also entitled to dispose of her coparcenary property. The court also cited the words of Roscoe Pound while stating the ardent need of the Amendment of 2005.

 

Approach of the legislature on the issue

  • Despite the Constitution of India being enshrined with the Right to Equality as a Fundamental Right, the Laws governing India for a very long time have suffered gross biasness on numerous grounds like gender, caste etc.
  • The arena of right to property has been greatly effected by this biasness, this can be concluded after referring to the authoritative treatise of Mulla:
  • The law of inheritance was of later growth and, in general, applied only to property held in absolute severalty as distinguished from property held by the joint family.
  • The fundamental conception of the Hindu joint family is a common male ancestor with his lineal descendants in the male line.
  • Even under early Hindu law, the rights of sons were recognized and they acquired equal interest with the father in the ancestral property as coparceners.

 

  • The National Commission for Women in the month of July 2001 also made numerous suggestions with regards to the amendment of the said act and its requirement.The arena of social justice demanded clear equality in the treatment of women in numerous and varied sphere of life. The

 

  • Law Commission of India in its 174th Report recognized this disparity and made a study of the amended State acts of Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala wherein the doctrine of equality had been inculcated in the inheritance Laws.

 

  • Furthermore, the Law Commission of India in its 204th Report gave suggestions as to changes to be brought to the Eighth Schedule in order to abrogate redundancy in the provisions.

 

Suggestions for the improvement of the current issue-

  • The present case is a landmark authority for the determination of the rights of coparceners in cases where the amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 during the pendency of the suit.
  • The rights of female heirs though have been recognized by both the legislature and the Courts still need to go a long way to be implemented in its actual sense.
  • A lot of awareness programs and other methodologies need to be adopted to spread the word in every nook and corner of the Country.
  • There is a need to rationalize the mindset of the people and make them realize the detrimental impact it is having on them.
  • The Courts or Legislature cannot on its own improvise the situation if the general people fail to accept and practice it, especially in a democratic country like India where every individual has the power to practice or do whatever he or she likes to a greater extent.
  • The other major drawback associated with the issue of rights of women to inherit their property is the suppression of the voice and will of the woman as the individual as a whole.
  • She remains a mere tool to transfer the property from her father to her husband and still is unable to enjoy any benefits or rights emanating from that property and continue to remain in their state of vulnerability.
  • This issue needs to addressed by the concerned authorities and such rules shall be enacted which gives the women the actual rights over the property.

Photo Posted By: ALEC
Back