Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Judgment Overriding Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma - There is no specific judgment that explicitly overrules or overrides the landmark Supreme Court decision in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) SCC 1. Instead, subsequent judgments and legal proceedings have consistently referred to and applied the principles laid down in that case, especially regarding the rights of daughters in Hindu coparcenary property and the nature of the law as declared by the Supreme Court ["K. Byrappa, S/o Late Kempaiah vs Ankamma (Dead) Smt Bhagya, W/O Mahadevu - Karnataka"].
Main Points and Insights:
The law as laid down in Vineeta Sharma is considered the final authority, and courts have been directed to modify decrees and proceedings accordingly, without any indication of a subsequent judgment overruling it ["VENKATESH S/O LATE GOVINDAIAH @ HOSAMANE GOVINDAIAH vs SMT. SAROJA D/O LATE GOVINDAIAH @ HOSAMANE GOVINDAIAH - Karnataka"], ["MAHANTAPPA S/O GURALINGAPPA HAVANNAVAR SINCE DECEASED BY LRS-1(a) PRABHAVATI AND ORS vs SHIVUBAI AND ORS - Karnataka"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["K. Byrappa, S/o Late Kempaiah vs Ankamma (Dead) Smt Bhagya, W/O Mahadevu - Karnataka"]- ["Phoolwati Deceased Thr Lrs VS Devinder Singh - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 1823"]- ["SANDEEP RAMAKANT BHAT v/s JANARDHAN S/O NARAYAN PRABHU - Karnataka"]- ["INDHHC030004502016"]- ["INDHHC010384632022"]- ["SUSILA AMMAL (Died) vs K.R.PARTHASARATHY(DIED) - Madras"]- ["SMT K R LAXMIDEVI Vs BHIMA RAO - Karnataka"]- ["VENKATESH S/O LATE GOVINDAIAH @ HOSAMANE GOVINDAIAH vs SMT. SAROJA D/O LATE GOVINDAIAH @ HOSAMANE GOVINDAIAH - Karnataka"]
In the realm of Hindu family law, few rulings have reshaped property inheritance like Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) 9 SCC 1. This landmark Supreme Court decision affirmed that daughters hold equal coparcenary rights by birth in ancestral property, thanks to the 2005 amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. But a pressing question lingers for many families entangled in partition suits: is there any judgment which overrides Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma?
This blog post dives deep into the legal landscape, analyzing provided judgments and sources to clarify that no subsequent ruling has superseded it. We'll break down its enduring authority, applications, limitations, and insights from related cases. Note: This is general information, not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
No judgment among the reviewed legal documents overrides or supersedes Vineeta Sharma. Courts consistently treat it as authoritative, applying its core principles on daughters' coparcenary rights by birth, the retrospectivity of the 2005 amendment, and exceptions like prior partitions. Subsequent cases reiterate, interpret, or apply it without contradiction. Prasanta Kumar Sahoo VS Charulata Sahu - 2023 4 Supreme 421Kadappa S/o. Girimallappa Madagouda VS Laxmibai W/o. Sidraya Chougala - 2024 0 Supreme(Kar) 158H. C. Puttaraju, S/o Late Chikke Gowda @ Chickaiah VS Harsha Rani D/o Late H. L. Chikke Gowda @ Chickaiah - 2021 0 Supreme(Kar) 943
For instance, one ruling states: In terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma case (supra) a daughter has been held to be entitled to share in the coparcenary property/joint family property in the same manner as sons would be entitled. The said decision would be applicable to all claims made by daughters... A suit having been dismissed or allowed, now pending in an appeal... all the Courts would have to apply the judgment in Vineeta Sharma Case (supra) at the time of adjudication. Kadappa S/o. Girimallappa Madagouda VS Laxmibai W/o. Sidraya Chougala - 2024 0 Supreme(Kar) 158
Vineeta Sharma clarified several pivotal aspects:
Quote: Under the amended Section 6, since the right is given by birth, that is, an antecedent event, and the provisions operate concerning claiming rights on and from the date of the Amendment Act. NEWTECH PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. VS STATE OF U. P. - 2021 8 Supreme 15
Pending Litigation: Applies to suits, appeals, and unpartitioned ancestral property. Kadappa S/o. Girimallappa Madagouda VS Laxmibai W/o. Sidraya Chougala - 2024 0 Supreme(Kar) 158
No Revival Post-Partition: Rights do not revive for properties partitioned before the amendment. Anil Jain VS Paritosh Jain - 2022 0 Supreme(Del) 359
Coparcenary Definition: Pre-2005, limited to propositus and three lineal male descendants; now includes daughters. Revanasiddappa VS Mallikarjun - 2023 6 Supreme 202
These principles echo across cases, such as one affirming: The said issue was decided by this Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Ors., (2020) 9 SCC 1. PADMAVATHY vs THAMARAVARDHINI . - 2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 10118
Courts routinely grant daughters equal shares in unpartitioned joint family property under Vineeta Sharma, especially in ongoing disputes. In partition suits among siblings, appellate courts have modified decrees to ensure equality. MAHANTAPPA S/O GURALINGAPPA HAVANNAVAR AND ORS vs SHIVUBAI W/O SANGONDAPPA KALASAGOND AND ORS
Another case dismissed an appeal, confirming shares per Vineeta Sharma: The shares granted to parties are in accordance with law pronounced under Vineeta Sharma v/s. Rakesh Sharma (supra). There is no merit in the Appeal. Mr. Vilas Gangaram Bhopale And Ors. vs Mrs. Kamal Mahukar Gaikwad And Ors. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 4322
Vineeta Sharma (para 137.5) demands robust proof for oral partitions—public documents or court decree equivalents. Pleas based solely on oral evidence are rejected. Mohan Hirachand Shah VS Geeta Kumarchand Shah - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 247Phoolwati Deceased Thr Lrs VS Devinder Singh - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 1823
In view of the rigour of provisions of the explanation to Section 6(5) of the 1956 Act, a plea of oral partition cannot be accepted as the statutory recognised as the mode of partition effected by a deed of partition duly registered... A plea of partition based on oral evidence alone cannot be accepted and to be rejected outrightly. Mohan Hirachand Shah VS Geeta Kumarchand Shah - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 247
Evidence is essential to determine the existence of oral partition... as per the exception enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma. Phoolwati Deceased Thr Lrs VS Devinder Singh - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 1823
This standard holds firm, as seen in cases requiring mutation records or similar proof.
Recent judgments reference Vineeta Sharma approvingly:
Prasanta Kumar Sahoo v. Charulata Sahu (2023) reiterated it, emphasizing coparcenary existence on September 9, 2005. No override by a two-judge bench against the three-judge Vineeta Sharma. K. Kailasamoorthy VS N. Indiradevi - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 3205
A second appeal allowed a daughter's share, conflicting with lower courts that ignored Vineeta Sharma: The controversy relating to entitlement of share by a daughter is put to rest by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma vs... K R Laxmidevi VS Bhima Rao - 2023 Supreme(Kar) 761
In trademark inheritance disputes, courts clarified Section 6 applicability but upheld Vineeta Sharma where relevant. Ashim Gujral VS Kuvam Gujral - 2022 Supreme(Del) 1621
Other sources, like MAHANTAPPA S/O GURALINGAPPA HAVANNAVAR SINCE DECEASED BY LRS-1(a) PRABHAVATI AND ORS vs SHIVUBAI AND ORS, direct modifications per Vineeta Sharma, and Alamelu VS Palanisamy Gounder (Died) - 2024 Supreme(Mad) 1956 discusses it alongside related rulings without challenge.
One case notes a perceived limitation: Applicability - Not retrospective in operation - Applies only when both coparcener and his daughter were alive on date of commencement of Amendment Act i.e. 9-9-2005. D. Ranganatha Rao VS D. Sujatha - 2021 Supreme(Kar) 889 But this aligns with Vineeta Sharma's nuances, not overriding it.
While authoritative, Vineeta Sharma outlines boundaries:
These are not overrides but faithful applications. Cases like Babulal Hathiram Raval VS Barot Girdharlal Jethalal - 2022 Supreme(Guj) 721 and Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): Jhatu Swain (since dead through his LRs) VS Jogi Swain reinforce evidentiary needs without contradicting the ruling.
Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma endures as the cornerstone of daughters' equal coparcenary rights. No reviewed judgment overrides it; all build upon or clarify its framework. For families navigating ancestral property disputes, understanding its scope—and limitations—can guide claims effectively.
Key Takeaways:- Daughters' rights by birth are retrospective but respect prior partitions.- Strong evidence is crucial for oral partition defenses.- Apply to pending cases; no broad exceptions.
Stay informed on evolving Hindu succession law, and seek professional advice tailored to your facts.
References (selected):1. Mohan Hirachand Shah VS Geeta Kumarchand Shah - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 247, Prasanta Kumar Sahoo VS Charulata Sahu - 2023 4 Supreme 421, NEWTECH PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. VS STATE OF U. P. - 2021 8 Supreme 15, Revanasiddappa VS Mallikarjun - 2023 6 Supreme 202, Har Naraini Devi VS Union of India - 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 947, Phoolwati Deceased Thr Lrs VS Devinder Singh - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 1823, Anil Jain VS Paritosh Jain - 2022 0 Supreme(Del) 359, Kadappa S/o. Girimallappa Madagouda VS Laxmibai W/o. Sidraya Chougala - 2024 0 Supreme(Kar) 158, K. Kailasamoorthy VS N. Indiradevi - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 3205, H. C. Puttaraju, S/o Late Chikke Gowda @ Chickaiah VS Harsha Rani D/o Late H. L. Chikke Gowda @ Chickaiah - 2021 0 Supreme(Kar) 9432. PADMAVATHY vs THAMARAVARDHINI . - 2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 10118, Mr. Vilas Gangaram Bhopale And Ors. vs Mrs. Kamal Mahukar Gaikwad And Ors. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 4322, K R Laxmidevi VS Bhima Rao - 2023 Supreme(Kar) 761
#VineetaSharma #HinduSuccession #DaughtersRights
In Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma [Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1 : (2021) 1 SCC (Civ) 119] this Court described the nature of prospective, retrospective, and retroactive laws : (SCC p. 53, para 61) “61. ... In the judgment of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma, reported in AIR 2020 SC 3717 of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in paragraph No.129 it has b....
The main averment on behalf of the plaintiffs is that the issues as framed in the present case are fully covered by the judgment of Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma (Supra) and other judgments as aforesaid. ... The issues as framed cannot be said to be covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma, (Supra), in view of the exception carved out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself as noted in paragraph 137.5 of the s....
Sharma V/s Rakesh Sharma?” ... The plaintiff No.2 has filed this appeal for claiming partition of properties of 1/4th share as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma and others reported in (2020)9 SCC 1 (Vineeta Sharma case). ... Sharma (supra). ... Therefore, as per Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, and as per law laid down by the Hon’bl....
The said issue was decided by this Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Ors., [Reaso3n: (2020) 9 SCC 1]. ... It is not in dispute that the judgment of Vineeta Sharma (supra) was not available when the impugned judgment was passed by the High Court. ... Having considered the submissions made, at present, we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the rights of the parties and leaving it open to the High Court to decide all th....
Therefore, the final decree ought to be drawn in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of VINEETA SHARMA V. RAKESH SHARMA, referred to supra. ... The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of VINEETA SHARMA V. ... RAKESH SHARMA referred to supra. iv. ... of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of VINEETA SHARMA V. ... The trial court is also directed to modify....
However, during the pendency of the appeal, the law has now been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court under the Judgment of Vineeta Sharma v/s. Rakesh Sharma [AIR 2020 SC 3717]. ... The shares granted to parties are in accordance with law pronounced under Vineeta Sharma v/s. Rakesh Sharma (supra). There is no merit in the Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. ... The aspect of prospective application of section 6, as arg....
Rakesh Sharma and others reported in AIR 2020 SC 3717?" 7. The controversy relating to entitlement of share by a daughter is put to rest by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma vs. ... Therefore, the judgment rendered by the Appellate Court in declining to grant share to defendant No.4 is in direct conflict with the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma (supra). ... Sharma vs. ... Therefore, this Court ....
of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of VINEETA SHARMA vs. ... Civil Judge, Bijapur, shall be modified by following judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of VINEETA SHARMA(stated supra). ... The review petitioner-appellant in RSA has submitted that as per the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of VINEETA SHARMA (stated supra), the daughters in the joint family are also ... RAKESH SHARMA#HL_EN....
Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma (supra). ... Rakesh Sharma and others reported in AIR 2020 SC 3717?” ... Sharma vs. ... Rakesh Sharma and - 7 - Others1. The law is no more res integra. ... The controversy relating to entitlement of share by a daughter is put to rest by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma vs.
In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2020 (9) SCC 1 [Vineeta Sharma Vs. ... Therefore, considering the above proposition laid down in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma and Others, the appellant / plaintiff is entitled to a 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties. ... Since the appeal purely rests upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2020 (9) SCC 1 [Vineeta Sharma ....
18. According to the pleadings of the parties, judgments and decrees of the Trial Court and 1st Appellate Court, when the above formulated substantial questions of law are interlinked having ample nexus with each other, then both the substantial questions of law are taken up together analogously for their discussions hereunder. 17. In order to make the gift deed dated 07.10.1988 vide Ext.B shown to have been executed by defendant No.2 (Chanchala Dei) in favour of the defendant No.1 in respect of the half of the suit properties as valid and lawful and in order to nullify the above concurrent ....
(vi) Vineeta Sharma's Case – Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma – vs – Rakesh Sharma and Others, reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1 DISCUSSION: 16. This Court has heard on either side and perused the materials available on record in light of the Substantial Questions of Law. (v) Radha Bai's Case - Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme in Radha Bai – vs – Ram Narayan and Others, reported in (2020) 19 SCC 513 (vii) Pooja Kanmani's Case – Judgment of this Court in R.Pooja Kanmani – vs – K.Rajendrakumar and Another, reported in 2024 SCC Online Mad 1794
(ii) Nagben D/o Vithalbhai Motibhai vs. Bhikhabhai Ranchhodbhai, 2020 JX (Guj) 309 (iii) Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma and Others, 2020 (9) SCC 1
I have already held that Section 6 is not applicable to the present case and in the event of Section 6 is to be considered, it would have to be the pre-amended Section 6, as it existed prior to the amendment of 2005. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma vs.
(iv) In the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma and others- 2020 (9) SCC 1. Applicability - Not retrospective in operation - Applies only when both coparcener and his daughter were alive on date of commencement of Amendment Act i.e. 9-9- 2005, irrespective of date of birth of daughter and coparcener who dies thereafter.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
