Danamma @ Suman Surpur v Amar
Rule established
Daughters are entitled to a share as coparceners in ancestral property under the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act even where a partition suit was filed before the 2005 amendment came into force, so long as the partition had not been finally effected by a registered instrument or final decree before that date.
Facts
- A suit for partition of joint family property was filed by a son before the 2005 amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act came into force. The daughters of the family were initially excluded or given a lesser share on the basis that they were not coparceners under the pre-amendment law. By the time the matter was finally decided, the 2005 amendment had come into force, and the daughters claimed equal coparcenary shares. The father coparcener had died before the 2005 amendment, raising a live conflict with the reasoning in Prakash v Phulavati (2016).
Issue
- Whether daughters can claim coparcenary shares under the amended Section 6 where a partition suit was already pending, filed before the amendment, and the father coparcener had died before the amendment came into force.
Held
- The Supreme Court held that a pending partition suit, in which no final decree or registered partition had been effected, does not disentitle daughters from claiming coparcenary rights conferred by the 2005 amendment. Since the partition process had not been completed, the amended law applied, and the daughters were entitled to equal shares as coparceners along with their brothers. This outcome sat uneasily with the "father must be alive on 9 September 2005" requirement laid down in Prakash v Phulavati, creating the doctrinal conflict later resolved in Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma (2020).
Ratio Decidendi
A partition of coparcenary property is not final for the purposes of excluding daughters from the benefit of the 2005 amendment to Section 6 unless it has been effected by a registered instrument or a final decree before the amendment came into force; a suit merely pending does not amount to a completed partition.
How to use it in an exam
- Key case for the "pending suit versus completed partition" distinction affecting daughters' coparcenary claims
- Must be read alongside Prakash v Phulavati (2016) and Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma (2020) to show the doctrinal conflict and its final resolution
- Key line: the finality of partition, not merely the pendency of litigation, determines whether the 2005 amendment applies
Source
Source: (2018) 3 SCC 343; later approved on outcome, clarified on reasoning by Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma (2020), cross-verify citation before exam use
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.