AI Overview...
When Daughters May Not Get Share in Father's Property Under Hindu Succession Amendment Act 2005
The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 brought landmark changes, granting daughters equal coparcenary rights in ancestral property as sons, effective from September 9, 2005. This means daughters are coparceners by birth, with the same rights and liabilities as sons. However, this right isn't absolute. There are specific scenarios where a daughter may not get property share in father's property as per the Act. Vineeta Sharma VS Rakesh Sharma - 2020 4 Supreme 193
Understanding these exceptions is crucial for families navigating inheritance. This post outlines 7 key situations based on judicial interpretations, helping you grasp when equal shares apply—or don't. Note: This is general information; consult a lawyer for your case, as outcomes depend on facts. Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. VS Union of India - 2019 2 Supreme 524
Background: Daughters' Rights Under the 2005 Amendment
Prior to 2005, under Mitakshara law, only males were coparceners. The amendment to Section 6 declares: the daughter of a coparcener shall by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son. This applies retrospectively from birth, even if the father died before 2005, provided the daughter is alive on the amendment date. Vineeta Sharma VS Rakesh Sharma - 2020 4 Supreme 193 M. Sujatha VS M. Surender Reddy
Key proviso: Rights don't affect partitions, alienations, or dispositions before December 20, 2004. Oral partitions need strong proof post-amendment. Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. VS Union of India - 2019 2 Supreme 524
Core Principle
- Ancestral/coparcenary property: Joint family property passed down (up to 4 generations).
- Self-acquired: Father's personal earnings—not subject to coparcenary claims.
Now, the 7 scenarios where daughters typically do not get a share:
1. Partition by Registered Deed Before December 20, 2004
If a registered partition deed divided the property before 20.12.2004, daughters can't claim under the amendment. The proviso to Section 6(1) saves such partitions. Vineeta Sharma VS Rakesh Sharma - 2020 4 Supreme 193
Provisions contained in substituted Section 6... with savings as provided in Section 6(1) as to disposition or alienation, partition... which had taken place before 20th day of December, 2004. Vineeta Sharma VS Rakesh Sharma - 2020 4 Supreme 193
Example: Family deed allotting shares pre-cutoff binds all, excluding later daughter claims. K J MATHEW vs SMT K J ELSY & - 2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 1437
2. Partition Effected by Court Decree Before Cutoff Date
A final court decree for partition before 20.12.2004 disrupts the coparcenary, barring amendment claims. Preliminary decrees allow adjustments, but final ones don't. Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. VS Union of India - 2019 2 Supreme 524 Vineeta Sharma VS Rakesh Sharma - 2020 4 Supreme 193
Partition effected by a decree of the Court... prior to 20th day of December, 2004. Mere severance isn't enough; it must be complete. N. V. Pushpalatha VS V. Padma - 2010 Supreme(Kar) 326
3. Prior Alienation or Disposition of Property
Sales, gifts, or transfers (alienations) before 20.12.2004 are protected. Daughters can't challenge them. Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. VS Union of India - 2019 2 Supreme 524
No vested right in erstwhile promoter... to bid for... property... Proviso rightly interdicts persons... from purchasing assets. Similar logic for family alienations. Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. VS Union of India - 2019 2 Supreme 524
Tip: Check document dates meticulously.
4. Property is Self-Acquired, Not Ancestral
Daughters only claim coparcenary property. Father's self-acquired property (from his earnings, post-severance) devolves by succession (Section 8), not birth right. Daughters get as Class I heirs, but equally with sons only if undivided. Uttam VS Saubhag Singh - 2016 2 Supreme 345
Property ancestral property in the hands of the grandfather – On grandfather dying intestate property no more remaining joint family property. Uttam VS Saubhag Singh - 2016 2 Supreme 345
Proof Burden: Claimant proves ancestral nucleus. Ratna Bai, W/o Late Devendra Kumar Chandrakar VS Tirath Ram, S/o Khelan Singh Chandrakar - 2022 Supreme(Chh) 354
5. Father Died Before Hindu Succession Act, 1956
If succession opened pre-1956 (father died before June 17, 1956), old Hindu law applies—no coparcenary for daughters. Amendment doesn't retroact to pre-Act deaths. Uttam VS Saubhag Singh - 2016 2 Supreme 345 Ragmania Died Through Lrs Kariman Das S/o Sunder Das vs Jagmet S/o Baigadas - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 10599
Death of plaintiff’s grandfather in 1973... Plaintiff... born in 1977 – No share can be allotted to him. Analogous for daughters pre-1956. Uttam VS Saubhag Singh - 2016 2 Supreme 345
Hindu Succession Act, 1956, does not retroactively apply to property inherited under Mitakshara Law prior. Ragmania Died Through Lrs Kariman Das S/o Sunder Das vs Jagmet S/o Baigadas - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 10599
6. Valid Will or Testamentary Disposition
Coparceners can will their undivided interest (Section 30), but not specific property without consent. Pre-2005 wills on coparcenary shares may prevail if partitioned. Daughters challenge only if sham. Parmanand Patel (Dead) by LR. VS Sudha A. Chowgule - 2009 4 Supreme 63 Veena Verma VS Snigdha Sinha - 2024 Supreme(Jhk) 297
Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 63 – Executor’s mental condition... relevant. Wills upheld if genuine. Parmanand Patel (Dead) by LR. VS Sudha A. Chowgule - 2009 4 Supreme 63
Post-amendment, daughters' birth rights limit such dispositions. Maruti Janu Mhaskar VS Muktabai Suryakant Bhoir - 2024 Supreme(Bom) 1070
7. Proven Oral Partition or Family Arrangement Pre-Amendment
Oral partitions were valid pre-2005 but need robust proof post-amendment (public documents, revenue records). If proved with metes/bounds, daughters excluded. Vineeta Sharma VS Rakesh Sharma - 2020 4 Supreme 193
Plea of oral partition cannot be accepted... unless supported by public documents. Heavy burden on claimant. But if evidenced, amendment doesn't reopen. Vineeta Sharma VS Rakesh Sharma - 2020 4 Supreme 193 M.M.Kumaresan vs M.Shanmugavadivu - 2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 374
Additional Considerations: State Amendments and Exceptions
Some states (e.g., Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra) had pre-2005 amendments, but Central Act 2005 overrides repugnant parts. Daughters still equal, marriage no bar. K. M. Thangavel VS K. T. Udayakumar - 2014 Supreme(Mad) 523 Maruti Janu Mhaskar VS Muktabai Suryakant Bhoir - 2024 Supreme(Bom) 1070
Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 does not make daughters of coparcener, who died before amendment... as coparceners. But Supreme Court clarified in later rulings (post-results). K. M. Thangavel VS K. T. Udayakumar - 2014 Supreme(Mad) 523
Key Takeaways
- Daughters generally get equal shares in undivided ancestral property post-2005.
- Exceptions hinge on pre-2004 actions: Partitions, sales, wills.
- Prove property nature: Ancestral vs. self-acquired.
- Timelines matter: Pre-1956 deaths follow old law.
| Scenario | Cutoff Date | Legal Basis |
|----------|-------------|-------------|
| Registered Partition | 20.12.2004 | Sec 6 Proviso Vineeta Sharma VS Rakesh Sharma - 2020 4 Supreme 193 |
| Court Decree | 20.12.2004 | Sec 6(5) Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. VS Union of India - 2019 2 Supreme 524 |
| Alienation | 20.12.2004 | Sec 6(1) |
| Self-Acquired | N/A | Sec 8 |
| Pre-1956 Death | 17.06.1956 | Old Law Uttam VS Saubhag Singh - 2016 2 Supreme 345 |
| Valid Will | Varies | Sec 30 |
| Proved Oral Partition | Pre-2005 | Evidence Vineeta Sharma VS Rakesh Sharma - 2020 4 Supreme 193 |
Conclusion
While the 2005 Act empowers daughters, these 7 things where daughter may not get property share protect settled rights. Families should document partitions properly. For disputes, evidence like deeds/revenue records is key. This isn't legal advice—seek professional guidance for your situation, as courts interpret facts uniquely. Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. VS Union of India - 2019 2 Supreme 524
Stay informed on inheritance laws to avoid family conflicts.
Search Results for "7 Cases Daughter Won't Get Father's Property Share Under 2005 Act"
2019 2 Supreme 524 • India - Supreme Court
ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, NAVIN SINHA
in erstwhile promoter of a corporate debtor to bid for immovable and movable property of the corporate debtor in liquidation – Proviso ... Resolution process is not adversarial to the corporate debtor, rather protective of its interests. ... professional is subject to challenge before the Adjudicating Authority – Similarly independent right of counterclaim is not taken ... not, according to the Court, square with #....
2016 2 Supreme 345 • India - Supreme Court
KURIAN JOSEPH, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
court prior to 9th September, 2005 – Not affected by amendment 2005. ... Succession Act, 1956 – Section 8 – Property ancestral property in the hands of the ... Act, 1956 – Section 6, prior to amendment in 2005 – Death of plaintiff’s grandfather in 1973 leaving ... Succession Act, and through several judgments of#HL_E....
2020 4 Supreme 193 • India - Supreme Court
ARUN MISHRA, S.ABDUL NAZEER, M.R.SHAH
6 (As amended by Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005) – Female Hindu succession – Rights of daughters ... of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005”. ... law whether daughter who was born prior to 2005 amendment would be entitled t....
2014 0 Supreme(Mad) 523 • India - Madras
P.R.SHIVAKUMAR
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 6 - Amendment - Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 - Applicability - Daughters of coparcener ... Sisters of first defendant had no right in property left by their father. ... Parliament itself amended Section 6 of Hindu Succession #H....
2005 0 Supreme(Bom) 1616 • India - Bombay
H.L.GOKHALE, R.S.DALVI
In the present case, both the things are clearly available. ... of - Decree of divorce - Cruelty - Court empowered that such payment may be secured by a charge on immovable property of respondent ... if any, the income and other property of the applicant, the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case, it may seem ... the mother belongs The main dispute in that matter was a property dispute concerni....
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 374 • India - High Court of Madras
Hon`ble Mr Justice R. SUBRAMANIAN
Partition - Ancestral Property - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 Fact of the Case:/ ... plaintiff, being the daughter of the coparcener, became a coparcener by birth as per the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. .......
2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 10599 • India - IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Narendra Kumar Vyas
(A) Civil Procedure Code - Section 100 - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (amended 2005) - Determination of property entitlements for inheritance ... before the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956; hence, the property was not partible under modern inheritance laws. ... Succession Act does ....
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 18121 • India - Karnataka High Court
(Paras 1-23) ... ... (B) Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 - Daughters' rights to equal share ... ancestral property status. ... in co-parcenary properties established - The judgment reinforced the principle of equal rights for daughters under Hindu law. ... The proposition that the daughters are entitled to equal share is by virtue #HL_....
• India - Current Civil Cases
K.C.BHANU, M.SEETHARAMA MURTI
(A) Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 6 (as amended by amendment Act of 2005) Right of female daughter in coparcenary property ... by amendment Act of 2005) – Hindu Law- Entitlement of daughter #HL_S....
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 5113 • India - High Court of Andhra Pradesh
V. Gopala Krishna Rao, J
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confer status of coparcener on the daughter born before or after amendment in the same manner
2018 0 Supreme(Guj) 448 • India - Gujarat
J.B.PARDIWALA
Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 had not been enacted. ... Similarly the shares of unmarried daughter is also clubbed into the share of the father. The Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 being a special Act, the computation of the land is to be done as per the provisions of the said Act and not as per the provisions of the Hindu#HL_....
2025 0 Supreme(All) 3102 • India - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SANDEEP JAIN
Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005) had not been enacted. ... but since, her father died before the enactment of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005, as such, she had no right in the disputed property because the daughters were given right in the Mitakshara Joint Hindu Family property only through the above #HL....
• India - Current Civil Cases
B. R. SARANGI, M. S. RAMAN
As such, the daughter has a right to get the property of her father from the date the Amendment Act came into force, i.e., in 2005. 12. ... Thereby, the petitioner, being the daughter of Late Kulamani Patel, claimed equal share in the said property. Relying on the provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005#....
2023 0 Supreme(Ori) 204 • India - Orissa
B. R. SARANGI, M. S. RAMAN
As such, the daughter has a right to get the property of her father from the date the Amendment Act came into force, i.e., in 2005. 12. ... Thereby, the petitioner, being the daughter of Late Kulamani Patel, claimed equal share in the said property. Relying on the provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005#H....
2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 1090 • India - Madras
V. M. VELUMANI, S. SOUNTHAR
Part of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was later amended in December 2004 by Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. ... He having purchased the same by the deed of sale dated 09.01.2012, the suit properties belonged to 1st defendant and respondents 1 & 2 are not entitled to 1/5th share in the suit properties as per the amendment to Hindu Succession#HL....
Filter by Legal Phrase
