AI Overview...
-
Danamma @ Suman Surpur vs. Amar (2018) 3 SCC 343 - Clarifies the interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the 2005 Amendment. The Supreme Court emphasized that the amended law recognizes daughters as coparceners with equal rights in ancestral property, and that their rights accrue from the date of the amendment (2005), not retrospectively. The judgment also discusses the importance of understanding the nature of coparcenary rights and the impact of the amendment on succession rights DANAMMA @ SUMAN SURPUR VS AMAR - Supreme Court, Hari Kishan VS Rati Ram - Punjab and Haryana, Vineeta Sharma VS Rakesh Sharma - Supreme Court, LOKAMANI VS MAHADEVAMMA - Supreme Court, Vineeta Sharma VS Rakesh Sharma - Supreme Court.
-
Legal Context and Precedents - The judgment reaffirms principles established in earlier cases such as Phulavati (2016) 2 SCC 36, which interpreted the scope of Section 6 post-amendment, and also references Mangammal v. T.B. Raju (2018) SCC online SC 422. The Court highlights that daughters' rights to coparcenary property are now recognized from the date of the amendment, and not retroactively, unless explicitly stated Vineeta Sharma VS Rakesh Sharma - Supreme Court, LOKAMANI VS MAHADEVAMMA - Supreme Court, Narinder Kumar VS Tej Ram - Himachal Pradesh.
-
Implications for Property and Succession - The ruling impacts cases involving ancestral property, partition, and inheritance rights, especially where the rights of daughters or female heirs are contested. It underscores that amendments to succession laws are to be applied prospectively, affecting ongoing and future proceedings Gannu @ Gaanu Ram VS Dhanmat Bai - Chhattisgarh, K. Subbulakshmi @ Pappayee VS C. V. Ramasamy Pillai(died) - Madras.
-
Additional Insights - The judgment addresses the procedural aspects, such as ensuring proper opportunity to all parties in partition suits and clarifies that the rights of female heirs are recognized from the date of the amendment, which is critical in property disputes involving ancestral land Radha Devi, W/o Goutam Singh VS UT of Jammu & Kashmir - Jammu and Kashmir.
Analysis and Conclusion: The Supreme Court in Danamma @ Suman Surpur vs. Amar (2018) clarified the scope of the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, affirming that daughters became coparceners from the date of the amendment. This landmark decision emphasizes prospective application of the law and reinforces gender equality in inheritance rights, significantly shaping property law and succession disputes involving Hindu females.
Search Results for "Danamma Suman Surpur X Amar"
2018 1 Supreme 538 • India - Supreme Court
A.K.SIKRI, ASHOK BHUSHAN
Amar
2019 0 Supreme(Chh) 1102 • India - Chhattisgarh
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, VIMLA SINGH KAPOOR
@ Suman Surpur Vs. ... prior the date on which Section 6 of the Act suffered amendment –Held, It is pertinent to note here that recently, this Court in Danamma ... ancestral property in view of the amendment in 2005 – On a perusal of the judgment and after having regard to the peculiar facts of the Danamma ... It is pertinent to note here that recently, this Court in Danamma @ Suman Surpur Vs. Amar, (2018) 1 Scale 657 dealt, inter-alia, with the disp....
2018 0 Supreme(P&H) 4505 • India - Punjab and Haryana
RAJ MOHAN SINGH
Phulavati and others, 2015 (4) RCR (Civil) 952 - Danamma @ Suman Surpur and another vs. ... Amar and others, 2018 (1) RCR (Civil) 863 Fact of the Case: Plaintiffs challenged a Civil Court decree claiming ancestral ... The aforesaid judgment has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the subsequent judgment rendered in Danamma @ Suman Surpur and another vs. Amar and others, 2018 (1) RCR (Civil) 863 .
2024 0 Supreme(J&K) 14 • India - Jammu and Kashmir
WASIM SADIQ NARGAL
alias Suman Surpur Vs. ... land in accordance with Section 105 of the Land Revenue Act and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled, “Danamma ... Amar (2018) 3 SCC 343 Fact of the Case: The petitioner sought ... alias Suman Surpur Vs. ... Surpur Vs. ... Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents are not deciding the application of the petitioner filed under Section 105 of the Land Revenue Act for partition of the land in questi....
2018 0 Supreme(SC) 1647 • India - Supreme Court
A.K.SIKRI, ASHOK BHUSHAN, S.ABDUL NAZEER
Phulavati, (2016) 2 SCC 36 and Danamma @ Suman Surpur vs. Amar, (2018) 3 SCC 343 with regard to interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005.
2018 0 Supreme(SC) 2000 • India - Supreme Court
A.K.SIKRI, S.ABDUL NAZEER
Phulavati, (2016) 2 SCC 36 and Danamma @ Suman Surpur vs. Amar, (2018) 3 SCC 343 with regard to interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005.
2018 0 Supreme(SC) 1646 • India - Supreme Court
A.K.SIKRI, ASHOK BHUSHAN, M.R.SHAH
Phulavati” (2016) 2 SCC 36, “Danamma @ Suman Surpur Vs. Amar” (2018) 3 SCC 343 and “Mangammal Vs. T.B. Raju” (2018) SCC online SC 422 on the issue involved in this petition.
2020 0 Supreme(Mad) 1036 • India - Madras
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Further he contended that when the third defendant is also entitled for her share in the suit 'A' schedule property, de-novo trial has to be ordered, since her opportunity to take part in the proceedings should be given and he also cited the judgment in the case of Danamma @ Suman Surpur Vs. ... Amar reported in (2018) 3 SCC 343, wherein it is held as follows: (27) In the present case, no doubt, suit for partition was filed in the year 2002.
2020 4 Supreme 193 • India - Supreme Court
ARUN MISHRA, S.ABDUL NAZEER, M.R.SHAH
Phulavati & Ors., (2016) 2 SCC 36 and Danamma @ Suman Surpur & Anr. v. ... Amar & Ors., (2018) 3 SCC 343. ... Phulavati and Others, (2016) 2 SCC 36 and Danamma @ Suman Surpur and Another vs. Amar and Others, (2018) 3 SCC 343. ... The opinion expressed in Danamma @ Suman Surpur & Anr. v. Amar is partly overruled to the extent it is contrary to this decision. Let the matters be pla....
2019 0 Supreme(HP) 75 • India - Himachal Pradesh
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN
Phulavati and ors., (2016) 2 SCC 36; and ... Danamma @ Suman Surpur & anr. vs. Amar & ors.,2018 3 HimLR 1709 (SC) ... 16.
Filter by Legal Phrase
