Prakash v. Phulavati
Supreme Court of India · 16 October 2015 · 2 judges
Overruled in whole or in part by Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020), which says: “we overrule the views to the contrary expressed in Prakash v. Phulavati”
The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 is prospective: a daughter gets coparcenary rights under amended Section 6 only if both she and her coparcener father were alive on 9 September 2005.
Facts
Phulavati sued in 1992 at Belgaum for partition and a 1/7th share in properties her father had inherited; her father had died on 18 February 1988. During the suit she amended the plaint to claim a share as a coparcener under Section 6 as amended by Act 39 of 2005. The trial court partly decreed the suit on the basis of a notional partition on her father's death. The Karnataka High Court applied the amended Section 6 to the pending proceedings and held her entitled to a 1/7th share in most of the properties. The defendants appealed, contending that the amendment did not apply because the father was not a coparcener alive when it came into force. A batch of special leave petitions raising the same question was heard with the appeal.
Questions before the Court
- Does the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 have retrospective effect, so that a daughter whose coparcener father died before 9 September 2005 can claim coparcenary rights under amended Section 6?
- What is the effect of the proviso to Section 6(1), Section 6(5) and its Explanation on partitions made before 20 December 2004, including a statutory notional partition?
What the Court held
- The amendment confers rights on a daughter of a coparcener only 'on and from' its commencement, and Section 6(3) speaks of death after the amendment. An amendment of a substantive provision is prospective unless expressly or by necessary intendment retrospective, and there is neither here.
- Being social legislation does not make the amendment retrospective. Even social legislation cannot be given retrospective effect unless the legislature so provides or intends.
- The rights under the amendment apply to living daughters of living coparceners as on 9 September 2005, irrespective of when the daughters were born. Birth after the amendment is not required.
- Dispositions, alienations and partitions made before 20 December 2004 under the earlier law remain unaffected; later partitions are governed by the Explanation. The requirement of a registered deed or decree does not apply to a statutory notional partition, which is by operation of law.
- The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order set aside and the matter remanded. In Part II the Court directed a separate PIL to be registered on gender discrimination against Muslim women, with notice to the Attorney General and NALSA.
Why it matters
The judgment decides that the 2005 amendment to Section 6 operates prospectively and limits the daughter's coparcenary right to cases where both the daughter and the coparcener father were living on the date of commencement. It holds that a statutory notional partition on a coparcener's death before the amendment is not reopened by the Explanation to Section 6(5). Separately, it directed that a PIL be registered on gender discrimination against Muslim women.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“The text of the amendment itself clearly provides that the right conferred on a ‘daughter of a coparcener’ is ‘on and from the commencement of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005’. Section 6(3) talks of death after the amendment for its applicability. In view of plain language of the statute, there is no scope for a different interpretation than the one suggested by the text of the amendment.”
“Contention of the respondents that the Amendment should be read as retrospective being a piece of social legislation cannot be accepted. Even a social legislation cannot be given retrospective effect unless so provided for or so intended by the legislature. In the present case, the legislature has expressly made the Amendment applicable on and from its commencement and only if death of the coparcener in question is after the Amendment.”
“Accordingly, we hold that the rights under the amendment are applicable to living daughters of living coparceners as on 9th September, 2005 irrespective of when such daughters are born.”
“We are unable to find any reason to hold that birth of the daughter after the amendment was a necessary condition for its applicability. All that is required is that daughter should be alive and her father should also be alive on the date of the amendment.”
Provisions interpreted
- Section 6, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (as amended by Act 39 of 2005)
- Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005
Related judgments
- Followed in Danamma @ Suman Surpur v. Amar (2018)
Case and bench
- Parties
- Prakash v. Phulavati
- Case
- Civil Appeal No. 7217 of 2013, with SLP (C) No. 21814 of 2008 and connected matters
- Decided
- 16 October 2015
- Bench
- Anil R. Dave, Adarsh Kumar Goel
- Opinions
- Unanimous. Judgment of the Court by Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.
Questions on this case
1 question in live Law Maker papers mentions this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.