Danamma @ Suman Surpur v. Amar
Supreme Court of India · 1 February 2018 · 2 judges
Overruled in whole or in part by Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020), which says: “The opinion expressed in Danamma @ Suman Surpur & Anr. v. Amar is partly overruled to the extent it is contrary to this decision.”
Daughters of a Mitakshara coparcener, though born before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, were held entitled to an equal share with sons in a partition suit that was still pending when amended Section 6 came into force in 2005.
Facts
Gurulingappa Savadi, propositus of a Hindu joint family, died in 2001 leaving two sons, two daughters (the appellants) and his widow. In 2002 his grandson Amar, son of one of the sons, sued for partition of the joint family properties. He pleaded that the daughters were not coparceners because they were born before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and that, being married, they had received gold and money and so relinquished their share. The trial court decreed the suit in 2007, holding the daughters entitled to no share as they were born before the Act, and rejecting their alternative claim under the 2005 amendment. The High Court dismissed their appeal in 2012 and later their review petition. The daughters appealed to the Supreme Court.
Questions before the Court
- Whether the daughters of the propositus could be denied a share in joint family property on the ground that they were born before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and so could not be coparceners.
- Whether, after the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, the daughters became coparceners by birth in their own right in the same manner as a son and were entitled to a share equal to that of a son.
What the Court held
- Under Section 6 as it stood before 2005, read with Explanation 1 as explained in Anar Devi v. Parmeshwari Devi, the interest of a deceased coparcener leaving a Class I female heir devolves by succession on a notional partition, not by survivorship. This negated the High Court's view.
- Amended Section 6 makes the daughter of a coparcener a coparcener by birth in her own right in the same manner as the son, with the same rights and liabilities. Rights of coparceners flow from birth, and the right to seek partition is available to a daughter who is a coparcener.
- Relying on Prakash v. Phulavati, which approved the High Court view that amended Section 6 applies to daughters born before 17 June 1956 or later, provided they are alive on 9 September 2005, the Court held that birth before the 1956 Act did not disentitle the daughters.
- The partition suit, filed in 2002, was pending when Section 6 was amended, and the decree came only in 2007. The appellants' rights crystallised in 2005 and the courts below should have considered this. Following Ganduri Koteshwaramma, a partition becomes final only on a final decree, and a preliminary decree must be amended to reflect the 2005 change.
- Each daughter was held entitled to a 1/5th share, equal to each son and the widow. The plaintiff's father's 1/5th share would be divided among five, giving the plaintiff 1/25th. The appeals were allowed and the trial court was directed to draw the decree accordingly.
Why it matters
The judgment applies amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act to a partition suit pending when the 2005 amendment came into force, treating the rights of daughters as crystallising in 2005 because the suit was pending and the decree came only in 2007. It holds that birth before 1956 does not disqualify a daughter, explains that coparcenary rights flow from birth, and confirms that a daughter coparcener can seek partition and take a share equal to a son.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“Section 6, as amended, stipulates that on and from the commencement of the amended Act, 2005, the daughter of a coparcener shall by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son. It is apparent that the status conferred upon sons under the old section and the old Hindu Law was to treat them as coparceners since birth. The amended provision now statutorily recognizes the rights of coparceners of daughters as well since birth.”
“In the present case, no doubt, suit for partition was filed in the year 2002. However, during the pendency of this suit, Section 6 of the Act was amended as the decree was passed by the trial court only in the year 2007. Thus, the rights of the appellants got crystallised in the year 2005 and this event should have been kept in mind by the trial court as well as by the High Court.”
“That apart, we are of the view that amendment to the aforesaid Section vide Amendment Act, 2005 clinches the issue, beyond any pale of doubt, in favour of the appellants. This amendment now confers upon the daughter of the coparcener as well the status of coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son and gives same rights and liabilities in the coparcener properties as she would have had if it had been son.”
Provisions interpreted
Related judgments
- Follows Prakash v. Phulavati (2015)“The controversy now stands settled with the authoritative pronouncement in the case of Prakash & Ors. v. Phulavati & Ors.” (page 13)
Case and bench
- Parties
- Danamma @ Suman Surpur & Anr. v. Amar & Ors.
- Case
- Civil Appeal Nos. 188-189 of 2018 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10638-10639 of 2013)
- Decided
- 1 February 2018
- Bench
- A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan
- Opinions
- Unanimous. Judgment of the Court delivered by A.K. Sikri, J.