The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that daughters are coparceners by birth under the amended Hindu Succession Act, 2005, irrespective of whether their father died before or after the amendment’s commencement. This ruling resolves longstanding confusion in partition suits and restores the equal statutory rights of daughters in ancestral property.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellants, Smt. Kaveri Pundlik Mapari and Smt. Godavari Santosh Tangade, are daughters of late Gangaram Bhanapure, who died on 20.04.2003. They filed a suit for partition and separate possession of ancestral property in Regular Civil Suit No.45 of 2008 (originally filed as No.23 of 2005). The suit property was ancestral joint family property, and the appellants claimed equal shares as coparceners under the amended Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Key Facts
- Late Gangaram Bhanapure was married twice: first to Sarjabai (deceased in 1966), from whom he had two daughters (the appellants); second to Smt. Godavari W/o. Gangaram Bhanapure (Respondent No.1), from whom he had three children: two sons (Respondents Nos.2 and 3) and one daughter (Respondent No.4).
- The suit property was held as joint family property prior to Gangaram’s death.
- At the time of Gangaram’s death on 20.04.2003, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was in its unamended form, which did not recognize daughters as coparceners.
- The appellants filed the partition suit on 15.03.2008, after the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 came into force on 09.09.2005.
- The trial court, by judgment and decree dated 28.10.2013, granted equal 1/6th shares to each of the five legal heirs: the two appellants (daughters), the widow (Respondent No.1), and the two sons (Respondents Nos.2 and 3). Respondent No.4, the daughter from the second marriage, was also granted 1/6th.
- The first appellate court, by judgment dated 11.07.2019, modified the shares, applying a notional partition as of the date of Gangaram’s death (20.04.2003). It held that under the unamended Act, only sons were coparceners, and thus Gangaram’s share was 1/4th (excluding daughters). This 1/4th was then divided equally among his five Class-I heirs, resulting in 1/24th shares for the three daughters and 7/24th shares each for the widow and two sons.
Procedural History
- 15.03.2008: Original partition suit filed in Civil Court, Lonar.
- 28.10.2013: Trial Court (Civil Judge, Junior Division, Lonar) decreed suit granting 1/6th share to each of the five heirs.
- 11.07.2019: First Appellate Court (District Judge-1, Mehkar) reversed the trial court’s share distribution, applying notional partition and granting 1/24th to daughters and 7/24th to widow and sons.
- 24.11.2021: Second Appeal admitted by Bombay High Court on substantial question of law regarding applicability of the 2005 Amendment.
- 07.04.2026: Judgment delivered by the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench).
Relief Sought
The appellants sought setting aside of the First Appellate Court’s order dated 11.07.2019 and restoration of the Trial Court’s decree granting equal 1/6th shares to all five heirs, including the daughters.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which grants daughters equal coparcenary rights by birth, applies to cases where the father died before the amendment came into force on 09.09.2005.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The appellants’ counsel relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, which held that the 2005 Amendment is retrospective in effect and confers coparcenary rights on daughters irrespective of the father’s date of death. It was argued that the notional partition applied by the First Appellate Court was based on the now-overruled precedent in Prakash v. Phulavati, and that the daughters’ rights are vested from birth, not contingent on the father’s survival beyond 2005.
For the Respondent/State
The respondents contended that since Gangaram died in 2003, before the amendment, the unamended Section 6 applied, and daughters could not claim coparcenary status. They argued that the notional partition was a legitimate method to determine the deceased’s share under the law as it stood at the time of death, and that the amendment could not revive rights that did not exist at the time of the father’s demise.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the evolution of the law on coparcenary rights, particularly the landmark judgment in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (AIR 2020 SC 3717), which overruled Prakash v. Phulavati. The Court emphasized that the 2005 Amendment does not merely confer a right to inherit upon the father’s death, but creates a new status - that of a coparcener by birth - which is retrospective in operation.
"The right of a daughter to be a coparcener is not dependent on the father being alive on 09.09.2005. The amendment confers a status, not a mere right to inherit. This status is retroactively applied to all living daughters as of the date of the amendment."
The Court held that the First Appellate Court erred in applying the notional partition doctrine under the unamended Act. The amendment does not require the father to be alive on the effective date; it recognizes the daughter’s birthright as a coparcener from birth, even if the father died earlier. The Court further clarified that the amendment applies to all partitions pending on or after 09.09.2005, regardless of when the father died.
The Court rejected the respondents’ argument that the amendment could not revive extinguished rights, noting that the daughter’s coparcenary interest is not extinguished by the father’s death - it is merely unenforceable until the amendment. Once the amendment came into force, the right became enforceable.
The Verdict
The Second Appeal was allowed. The judgment and decree dated 11.07.2019 of the First Appellate Court was quashed and set aside. The judgment and decree dated 28.10.2013 of the Trial Court was confirmed, restoring equal 1/6th shares to each of the five heirs - the two appellants, the widow, and the two sons. The daughter from the second marriage (Respondent No.4) was also granted 1/6th share. Parties were directed to bear their own costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Coparcenary Rights Are Not Time-Bound to Father’s Survival
- Practitioners must now argue that a daughter’s coparcenary status is established at birth and is not extinguished by the father’s prior death.
- Any partition decree based on Prakash v. Phulavati must be challenged on the ground that it is contrary to Vineeta Sharma.
- Courts must disregard notional partition calculations that exclude daughters from coparcenary shares if the father died before 2005.
Pending Partition Suits Must Be Reassessed
- All partition suits pending as of 09.09.2005 - whether filed before or after - must be decided under the amended Act.
- Even if a trial court granted shares under the old law, appellate courts must revisit the distribution if the appeal was pending after 2005.
- Legal heirs must be identified as coparceners, not merely as Class-I heirs, for the purpose of share calculation.
Documentation and Evidence Must Reflect New Status
- Title documents, mutation records, and partition deeds executed after 2005 must reflect daughters as coparceners.
- In cases where partition was settled by compromise or family arrangement after 2005, the rights of daughters must be explicitly recognized.
- Lawyers must update pleadings in ongoing litigation to invoke Vineeta Sharma as binding precedent.
