Daughters’ Rights in Coparcenary Property under Hindu Succession Act
The core legal question is whether a daughter can assert an equal coparcenary right in ancestral property when her father, through whom she claims, died before the 2005 amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act came into force. The claim rests on the amended Section 6, which confers the status of a coparcener on a daughter by birth, with the same rights and liabilities as a son. The dispute typically arises when brothers resist the claim on the ground that the father was not alive on the date the amendment took effect.
Courts approach this question by examining the text and purpose of the amended Section 6 and the nature of coparcenary rights. The listed cases do not directly address the 2005 amendment, and the holdings provided do not contain a ruling on the retroactive operation of Section 6. Therefore, the direction of the law on this precise point cannot be stated from the given material, and advocates must weigh the statutory language and any subsequent authoritative pronouncements.
The leading cases
12 judgments · 12 Supreme Court · most-cited first
What LexPilot's research engine returns for this question, ranked by court and how often each judgment has been cited since. Read the full judgment before you rely on a holding.
- 1
Shakuntala Sawhney v. Kaushalya Sawhney
1979 INSC 78Supreme Court · 1979cited 2,072 times
The appeal was allowed in part in terms of the compromise. The Court directed the respondent to pay Rs. 75,000 to the appellant and to make over landed property worth Rs. 25,000 from the suit property to the appellant.…
- 2
Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu
2020 INSC 620Supreme Court · 2020cited 1,346 times
Statement recorded under s. 67 NDPS Act is inadmissible as substantive evidence; officers under s. 53 NDPS Act are "police officers" under s. 25 Evidence Act; confessions made to them are barred; conviction based…
- 3
S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal and Anr.
2010 INSC 247Supreme Court · 2010cited 1,342 times
All appeals allowed; criminal complaints quashed. (i) No obscenity under s. 292 IPC — context and absence of content capable of arousing sexual desire in a prudent reader precluded the offence; (ii) No defamation under…
- 4
Vilas Pandurang Pawar & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
2012 INSC 386Supreme Court · 2012cited 1,093 times
Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 imposes a statutory bar on the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. when an offence under the Act is…
- 5
Sushila Aggarwal and Others v. State (nct of Delhi) and Another
2020 INSC 106Supreme Court · 2020cited 826 times
The five-judge bench unanimously answered the reference: (1) Anticipatory bail under s.438 CrPC should not ordinarily be limited to a fixed period and should inure in favour of the accused without restriction as to…
- 6
Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.
2014 INSC 21Supreme Court · 2014cited 802 times
Power u/s 319(1) CrPC is exercisable from the stage of filing of the charge-sheet up to pronouncement of judgment; 'trial' commences only on framing of charges; 'evidence' for this purpose is confined to material…
- 7
Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra & Anr.
2019 INSC 939Supreme Court · 2019cited 715 times
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the FIR. On the IPC charges, the Court held that the allegations did not establish a false promise to marry made with a deceptive intent at the inception. The…
- 8
The State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh
1999INSC282Supreme Court · 1999cited 708 times
(i) It is imperative and obligatory for an empowered officer to inform the suspect of their right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate before conducting the search. Oral communication is…
- 9
Aparna Bhat & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
2021 INSC 192Supreme Court · 2021cited 411 times
Rakhi-tying as a bail condition is wholly unacceptable: it transforms a molester into a brother by judicial mandate, dilutes the offence of sexual harassment, and perpetuates gender stereotypes. Courts have no power to…
- 10
The Barium Chemicals Ltd. and Anr v. the Company Law Board and Others
1966INSC116Supreme Court · 1966cited 377 times
The Supreme Court, by a majority, held that the impugned order must be set aside. The Court found that the circumstances disclosed in paragraph 14 of the Chairman's affidavit were extraneous to Section 237(b) and could…
- 11
His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalavaru v. State of Kerala
1973INSC91Supreme Court · 1973cited 333 times
(By Full Court) The Constitution (Twenty-Fourth Amendment) Act, Section 2(a) and 2(b) of the Constitution (Twenty-Fifth Amendment) Act, and the Constitution (Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Act are valid. By majority: The…
- 12
Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat
2010 INSC 750Supreme Court · 2010cited 320 times
The obligation of the empowered officer under s.50(1) of the NDPS Act is mandatory and requires strict compliance: the officer must affirmatively inform the suspect of his right to be taken before the nearest Gazetted…
Frequently asked questions
Does the 2005 amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act apply if the father died before the amendment came into force?
The listed judgments do not contain a holding that answers this question. The amended Section 6 states that a daughter becomes a coparcener by birth, but its application to a father who died before the amendment is a matter of statutory interpretation that is not resolved by the cases provided.
Can a daughter claim a share in ancestral property as a coparcener by birth when the partition or succession opened before 2005?
The holdings in the listed cases do not address the effect of the 2005 amendment on a succession that opened before its enactment. The claim would depend on whether the amendment is construed as retrospective or retroactive, a point on which the given material offers no guidance.
What is the legal basis for a daughter to assert an equal coparcenary right against her brothers in ancestral property?
The legal basis is the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, which declares that a daughter of a coparcener shall by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as a son. The listed cases do not interpret this provision, so its application to specific fact situations must be argued from the statutory text.
Free trial · Research assistance, not legal advice — always read the judgment before you rely on it.
More on family & matrimonial
- Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC / Section 144 BNSS
- Child Custody and Visitation under the Guardians and Wards Act and Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act
- Divorce on the Ground of Cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act
- Partition of Joint Family Property
- Transfer of Matrimonial Petition Under Section 24 CPC