Daughter’s Right to Property

Introduction:

One of the most important smritis in Ancient India is manusmriti, which treats women as inferior creatures who can never be left unbound by representing them as dependent upon their father when young, upon their husband when older, and in their old age upon their son.

Throughout history, women have been placed at the bottom of the social and economic hierarchy of human relationships and have been viewed as lesser beings in comparison to men. This patriarchal society doesn’t stop at the low status of women in their households and society,it also affects their rights.

Our constitution envisages women as citizens of India and treats them as equal to men in all spheres of life. Since the beginning, women were intentionally disregarded by the right to propertyhowever, to obtain the objective of the Constitution, the Succession Act went through several amendments that were discriminatory against them.

Historical Context:

The firstborn son was thought to be capable of offering sacrifice to the manes of the deceased ancestors and procuring salvation for them this introduced the rule of primogeniture, which meant “being the firstborn child”. The custom stated that the firstborn male child would inherit the entire property of the parents under the right of succession ignoring the n number of children born after him whereas daughters of the family had no right of inheritance because it was considered that after marriage daughters become part of some other family and inheritance rights to them might result in the transfer of a huge portion of the property from one family to another making it detrimental for the family of the girl.

The amendment of 2005 to the Hindu Succession Act was a revolutionary law that acknowledged girls as coparceners, giving them the same rights to inherit as boys concerning their father's possessions. This historic law made it possible for daughters to get their just share of the inheritance.

In the case of Prakash vs. Phulavati (2015), the honourable court held that only "living daughters of living coparceners" as of the date the amendment went into effect (September 2005) could benefit from the amendment and that Section 6 is not retroactive. In February 2018, the Court decided that, in contrast to the 2015 decision, a father who passed away in 2001 will also have his portion pass to his daughters as coparceners when the property is divided under the 2005 law.

In April 2018, in Suman Surpur vs. Amar, the Court restated its 2015 ruling.

These clashing views by the bench of equal strength led to a reference to a three-judge bench that decided the case in an appeals reference that posed the question of whether the Act's amendment giving daughters the same rights to inherit ancestral property would take effect retroactively. This implies that a daughter of a coparcener may either be granted her share because she was born before the Act's enactment on September 9, 2005, and hence cannot be treated as a coparcener, or she may, with the passage of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son.

The ruling indicates that the 1956 Hindu Succession Act amendment giving daughters the same rights to inherit family property would apply retroactively. The daughters' right to equality, granted by Section 6, cannot be taken away from them. In Hindu families, daughters and sons have an equal birthright to share in joint property. Given that a daughter's entitlement to coparcenary is based on her birth, the father's existence on September 9, 2005, is not required. Thus, the Court reversed a ruling of 2015.

The Court further declared that the actual division or disruption of the coparcenary was not caused by the legislative fiction of partition imposed by the proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, as originally constituted. It is not possible to accept an oral or unregistered partition without a contemporaneous public document as the legally recognized manner of partition. Oral partition may, however, be allowed in extraordinary circumstances if it is backed by open records and the division is ultimately demonstrated in a way that is consistent with how a court order has impacted it.

In the case of Vineeta Sharma, by placing no weight on the daughter's birthdate or, conversely, the father's date of death, either before or after the 2005 amendment, the Court resolved the question of when the amendment went into force. The daughter has the same rights as a son concerning the coparcenary property as long as she lives after 2005. Consequently, it makes no difference if her father is still alive or not, nor if she was married on September 9, 2005, the deadline. In the event that a girl is born before September 9, 2005, she will acquire the same rights and obligations as sons upon becoming a coparcener in her own right, provided that there was no division, partition, or devolution prior to December 20, 2004. A daughter may now assert an interest in the property as long as it was coparcenary property on that date and had not been divided.

The Supreme Court declared that daughters will have inheritance rights equal to those of sons from the properties of fathers, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers, right from the codification of the law in 1956, putting the final nail in the cobwebs of male primacy in the division of Hindu ancestral property. Whether or not the father was living on September 9, 2005, the Bench decided that daughters would have equal coparcenary rights in Hindu undivided family estates. The Bench argued that this right is acquired by birth under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. When there is intestate succession rather than testamentary succession, daughters are eligible to receive the benefit. Nevertheless, daughters would not be able to contest the disposal even if they claimed coparcenary rights.

Conclusion:

In India, the battle for a daughter's property rights has been a protracted and difficult one. The journey from a history of exclusion to the current state of legal equality shows a dedication to eliminating discrimination based on gender. There is a long way to go before daughters in India have equal property rights. The fight is far from lost, as social prejudices and ignorance in some communities still present problems. To guarantee that girls inherit their fair share, a multifaceted strategy is needed:

Now, daughters canassert their proper share after discriminatory practices were destroyed by legal reforms and historic rulings. Still, constant work is required to close the gap between the law and social reality. We can make sure that daughters inherit not just the property but also the freedom and security that come with financial independence by raising awareness, confronting prejudices, and empowering women.