Daughters’ Rights in Ancestral and Family Property

Partition suits involving daughters’ shares are among the most common property disputes. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, which came into force on 9 September 2005, amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to make daughters coparceners by birth.

The Vineeta Sharma ruling

In Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1, a three-judge Bench settled earlier conflicting decisions and held that:

• a daughter becomes a coparcener by birth, in the same manner as a son;
• it is not necessary that the father was alive on 9 September 2005;
• the daughter has the same rights and liabilities in coparcenary property as a son; and
• partitions completed before 20 December 2004 by a registered deed or court decree are not reopened, but an oral partition will not be accepted unless supported by public documents.

Related decisions

• Danamma v. Amar, (2018) 3 SCC 343: daughters were given equal shares in coparcenary property in a partition suit that was pending when the amendment came into force.
• Arunachala Gounder v. Ponnusamy (Supreme Court, 2022): the self-acquired property of a Hindu male who died intestate was held to devolve on his daughter, and on her death, under Section 15 of the Act.

Practical points

• A pending partition suit can be amended to claim the daughter’s share, depending on the stage of the case.
• Relinquishment or release deeds signed by a daughter must be examined carefully.
• The family tree, revenue records and title documents form the basis of any partition claim.

Key judgments

• Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1.
• Danamma v. Amar, (2018) 3 SCC 343.