Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma

Facts

The interpretation of substituted Section 6 was referred to a larger Bench because of conflicting Division Bench rulings in Prakash v. Phulavati (2016) and Danamma v. Amar (2018) on whether the father coparcener had to be alive on the commencement date (9.9.2005) for a daughter to claim coparcenary rights. Numerous connected appeals raised whether the amended provision was prospective, retrospective or retroactive, and what counts as a saved 'partition'.

Issues

• Whether substituted Section 6 confers coparcenary status on a daughter by birth irrespective of whether her father coparcener was alive on 9.9.2005
• Whether the amended Section 6 operates prospectively, retrospectively or retroactively
• What forms of partition before 20.12.2004 are saved under Section 6(5) and its Explanation, and the effect of the statutory notional partition under the old proviso

Arguments

It was argued for the daughters that coparcenary is acquired by birth, so the father need not be living on 9.9.2005 and the right is retroactive. The contesting side argued, following Prakash v. Phulavati, that only living daughters of living coparceners on 9.9.2005 benefit, the provision being prospective, and that oral/unregistered partitions before 20.12.2004 defeat the claim.

Held

The Court held that Section 6(1)(a) makes a daughter a coparcener 'in her own right' by birth 'in the same manner as the son', so the provision is retroactive: it confers rights on and from 9.9.2005 based on the antecedent event of birth, and it is irrelevant whether the father coparcener was alive on that date. The daughter need only be alive on 9.9.2005; she may be born before or after the amendment. The statutory notional partition under the old proviso to Section 6 was only a device to ascertain a deceased coparcener's share and did not effect an actual partition or disrupt the coparcenary. Prakash v. Phulavati and Mangammal were overruled and Danamma partly overruled; a plea of oral partition is to be rejected unless proved by registered deed, court decree, or exceptionally by cogent contemporaneous public documents.

Ratio decidendi

A daughter becomes a coparcener by birth with the same rights and liabilities as a son; conferral is by birth (an antecedent event) and is not contingent on the father coparcener being alive on 9.9.2005, the daughter needing only to be alive on that date, subject to dispositions, alienations and registered/decreed partitions effected before 20.12.2004.

Significance

The definitive and binding pronouncement on the 2005 amendment, settling years of conflicting authority and securing daughters' equal coparcenary rights. It overruled Prakash v. Phulavati and Mangammal and partly overruled Danamma, and remains the leading authority on the retroactive nature of substituted Section 6.

Related