2020 (8) TMI 571 - SC - Indian Laws

Interpretation of Statute - Right of Daughter in the property of her parents etc. - Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 - right of a coparcener in the property - retrospective and retroactive statute - HELD THAT - In view of the provisions contained in Section 6 when a coparcener is survived by a female heir of Class I or male relative of such female, it was necessary to ascertain the share of the deceased, as such, a legal fiction was created. The Explanation I provided legal fiction of partition as if it had taken place immediately before his death, notwithstanding whether he had the right to claim it or not. However, a separated Hindu could not claim an interest in the coparcenary based on intestacy in the interest left by the deceased - The amended provisions of Section 6(1) provide that on and from the commencement of the Amendment Act, the daughter is conferred the right. Section 6(1)(a) makes daughter by birth a coparcener in her own right and in the same manner as the son. Section 6(1)(a) contains the concept of the unobstructed heritage of Mitakshara coparcenary, which is by virtue of birth. Section 6(1)(b) confers the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son . The conferral of right is by birth, and the rights are given in the same manner with incidents of coparcenary as that of a son and she is treated as a coparcener in the same manner with the same rights as if she had been a son at the time of birth. Though the rights can be claimed, w.e.f. 9.9.2005, the provisions are of retroactive application; they confer benefits based on the antecedent event, and the Mitakshara coparcenary law shall be deemed to include a reference to a daughter as a coparcener. At the same time, the legislature has provided savings by adding a proviso that any disposition or alienation, if there be any testamentary disposition of the property or partition which has taken place before 20.12.2004, the date on which the Bill was presented in the Rajya Sabha, shall not be invalidated. The prospective statute operates from the date of its enactment conferring new rights. The retrospective statute operates backward and takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws. A retroactive statute is the one that does not operate retrospectively. It operates in futuro. However, its operation is based upon the character or status that arose earlier. Characteristic or event which happened in the past or requisites which had been drawn from antecedent events. Under the amended Section 6, since the right is given by birth, that is an antecedent event, and the provisions operate concerning claiming rights on and from the date of Amendment Act. The effect of the amendment is that a daughter is made coparcener, with effect from the date of amendment and she can claim partition also, which is a necessary concomitant of the coparcenary. Section 6(1) recognises a joint Hindu family governed by Mitakshara law. The coparcenary must exist on 9.9.2005 to enable the daughter of a coparcener to enjoy rights conferred on her. As the right is by birth and not by dint of inheritance, it is irrelevant that a coparcener whose daughter is conferred with the rights is alive or not. Conferral is not based on the death of a father or other coparcener. In case living coparcener dies after 9.9.2005, inheritance is not by survivorship but by intestate or testamentary succession as provided in substituted Section 6(3). Effect of enlargement of daughter's rights - HELD THAT - As per the Mitakshara law, no coparcener has any fixed share. It keeps on fluctuating by birth or by death. It is the said principle of administration of Mitakshara coparcenary carried forward in statutory provisions of Section 6. Even if a coparcener had left behind female heir of Class I or a male claiming through such female Class I heir, there is no disruption of coparcenary by statutory fiction of partition. Fiction is only for ascertaining the share of a deceased coparcener, which would be allotted to him as and when actual partition takes place. The deemed fiction of partition is for that limited purpose. The classic Shastric Hindu law excluded the daughter from being coparcener, which injustice has now been done away with by amending the provisions in consonance with the spirit of the Constitution - There can be a sole surviving coparcener in a given case the property held by him is treated individual property till a son is born. In case there is a widow or daughter also, it would be treated as joint family property. If the son is adopted, he will become a coparcener. An adoption by a widow of a deceased coparcener related to the date of her husband's death, subject to saving the alienations made in the intermittent period. Acquisition of Rights in Coparcenary Property - HELD THAT - As a matter of fact, in substance, there is a divergence of opinion in Prakash v. Phulavati and Danamma 2015 (10) TMI 2761 - SUPREME COURT with respect to the aspect of living daughter of a living coparcener. In the latter case, the proposition of the living daughter of a living coparcener was not dealt with specifically. However, the effect of reasons given in para 23 had been carried out to logical end by giving an equal share to the daughter. Partition and Effect of Statutory Fiction - HELD THAT - Once the constitution of coparcenary changes by birth or death, shares have to be worked out at the time of actual partition. The shares will have to be determined in changed scenario. The severance of status cannot come in the way to give effect to statutory provision and change by subsequent event. The statutory fiction of partition is far short of actual partition, it does not bring about the disruption of the joint family or that of coparcenary is a settled proposition of law. For the reasons mentioned above, we are also of the opinion that mere severance of status by way of filing a suit does not bring about the partition and till the date of the final decree, change in law, and changes due to the subsequent event can be taken into consideration. When the proviso to unamended Section 6 of the Act of 1956 came into operation and the share of the deceased coparcener was required to be ascertained, a deemed partition was assumed in the lifetime of the deceased immediately before his death. Such a concept of notional partition was employed so as to give effect to Explanation to Section 6. The fiction of notional partition was meant for an aforesaid specific purpose. It was not to bring about the real partition. Neither did it affect the severance of interest nor demarcated the interest of surviving coparceners or of the other family members, if any, entitled to a share in the event of partition but could not have claimed it. The entire partition of the coparcenary is not provided by deemed fiction; otherwise, coparcenary could not have continued which is by birth, and the death of one coparcener would have brought an end to it. Legal fiction is only for a purpose it serves, and it cannot be extended beyond. It is apparent that the right of a widow to obtain an equal share in the event of partition with the son was not deprived under old Section 6. Unamended Section 6 provided that the interest of a coparcener could be disposed of by testamentary or intestate succession on happening of exigency under the proviso. Under the old law before 1956 devise by a coparcener of Hindu Mitakshara family property was wholly invalid. Section 3 What has been recognised as partition by the legislation Under Section 6, accordingly, rights are to be worked out. This Court consistently held in various decisions mentioned above that when the rights are subsequently conferred, the preliminary decree can be amended, and the benefit of law has to be conferred. Hence, we have no hesitation to reject the effect of statutory fiction of proviso to Section 6 - If a daughter is alive on the date of enforcement of the Amendment Act, she becomes a coparcener with effect from the date of the Amendment Act, irrespective of the date of birth earlier in point of time. Section 6(5) - HELD THAT - The intendment of amended Section 6 is to ensure that daughters are not deprived of their rights of obtaining share on becoming coparcener and claiming a partition of the coparcenary property by setting up the frivolous defence of oral partition and/or recorded in the unregistered memorandum of partition. The Court has to keep in mind the possibility that a plea of oral partition may be set up, fraudulently or in collusion, or based on unregistered memorandum of partition which may also be created at any point of time. Such a partition is not recognized Under Section 6(5) - It is settled law that family arrangements can be entered into to keep harmony in the family. There is a general presumption that every Hindu family is presumed to be joint unless the contrary is proved. It is open even if one coparcener has separated, to the non-separating members to remain joint and to enjoy as members of a joint family. No express agreement is required to remain joint. It may be inferred from how their family business was carried on after one coparcener was separated from them. Whether there was a separation of one coparcener from all other members of a joint family by a decree of partition, the decree alone should be looked at to determine the question. The expression used in Explanation to Section 6(5) 'partition effected by a decree of a court' would mean giving of final effect to actual partition by passing the final decree, only then it can be said that a decree of a court effects partition. A preliminary decree declares share but does not effect the actual partition, that is effected by passing of a final decree; thus, statutory provisions are to be given full effect, whether partition is actually carried out as per the intendment of the Act is to be found out by Court. Even if partition is supported by a registered document it is necessary to prove it had been given effect to and acted upon and is not otherwise sham or invalid or carried out by a final decree of a court. In case partition, in fact, had been worked out finally in toto as if it would have been carried out in the same manner as if affected by a decree of a court, it can be recognized, not otherwise - There is a clear legislative departure with respect to proof of partition which prevailed earlier; thus, the Court may recognise the other mode of partition in exceptional cases based upon continuous evidence for a long time in the shape of public document not mere stray entries then only it would not be in consonance with the spirit of the provisions of Section 6(5) and its Explanation. Thus, it is decided as under (i) The provisions contained in substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confer status of coparcener on the daughter born before or after amendment in the same manner as son with same rights and liabilities. (ii) The rights can be claimed by the daughter born earlier with effect from 9.9.2005 with savings as provided in Section 6(1) as to the disposition or alienation, partition or testamentary disposition which had taken place before 20th day of December, 2004. (iii) Since the right in coparcenary is by birth, it is not necessary that father coparcener should be living as on 9.9.2005. (iv) The statutory fiction of partition created by proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as originally enacted did not bring about the actual partition or disruption of coparcenary. The fiction was only for the purpose of ascertaining share of deceased coparcener when he was survived by a female heir, of Class-I as specified in the Schedule to the Act of 1956 or male relative of such female. The provisions of the substituted Section 6 are required to be given full effect. Notwithstanding that a preliminary decree has been passed the daughters are to be given share in coparcenary equal to that of a son in pending proceedings for final decree or in an appeal. (v) In view of the rigor of provisions of Explanation to Section 6(5) of the Act of 1956, a plea of oral partition cannot be accepted as the statutory recognised mode of partition effected by a deed of partition duly registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 or effected by a decree of a court. However, in exceptional cases where plea of oral partition is supported by public documents and partition is finally evinced in the same manner as if it had been affected by a decree of a court, it may be accepted. A plea of partition based on oral evidence alone cannot be accepted and to be rejected outrightly. The views to the contrary expressed in Prakash v. Phulavati and Mangammal v. T.B. Raju and Ors. 2018 (5) TMI 1368 - SUPREME COURT overruled - The opinion expressed in Danamma @ Suman Surpur and Anr. v. Amar 2018 (3) TMI 867 - SUPREME COURT is partly overruled. Let the matters be placed before appropriate Bench for decision on merits.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.
2. Retrospective or prospective application of the amended Section 6.
3. Rights of daughters as coparceners.
4. Validity of oral partitions and unregistered partition deeds.
5. Impact of the amendment on pending partition suits and preliminary decrees.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005:
The judgment addresses the conflicting interpretations in Prakash v. Phulavati and Danamma @ Suman Surpur v. Amar regarding Section 6. The Court clarifies that the amended Section 6 confers coparcenary status on daughters by birth, in the same manner as sons, with the same rights and liabilities. This interpretation aims to eliminate gender discrimination and ensure equality.

2. Retrospective or Prospective Application of the Amended Section 6:
The Court concludes that the amended Section 6 is retroactive, not retrospective. It operates from the date of the amendment (9.9.2005) and applies to daughters born before or after this date. The rights can be claimed by daughters from the date of the amendment, with savings for dispositions, alienations, partitions, or testamentary dispositions that occurred before 20.12.2004.

3. Rights of Daughters as Coparceners:
The judgment emphasizes that daughters have the same rights as sons in coparcenary property by birth. It is not necessary for the father or any other coparcener to be alive on the date of the amendment for daughters to claim their rights. The Court overrules the view in Prakash v. Phulavati that required both the daughter and the coparcener to be alive on the date of the amendment.

4. Validity of Oral Partitions and Unregistered Partition Deeds:
The Court addresses the issue of oral partitions and unregistered partition deeds, stating that such partitions cannot be readily accepted under the amended Section 6. The Explanation to Section 6(5) requires partitions to be effected by a registered deed or a court decree. However, in exceptional cases where oral partitions are supported by public documents and contemporaneous evidence, they may be accepted.

5. Impact of the Amendment on Pending Partition Suits and Preliminary Decrees:
The judgment clarifies that the statutory fiction of partition under the proviso to Section 6 did not bring about an actual partition or disruption of the coparcenary. The daughters are entitled to equal shares in coparcenary property in pending proceedings for final decrees or appeals, even if a preliminary decree has been passed. The Court requests that pending matters be decided within six months to avoid further delays.

Conclusion:
The judgment overrules the contrary views expressed in Prakash v. Phulavati and Mangammal v. T.B. Raju and partially overrules Danamma @ Suman Surpur v. Amar to the extent it conflicts with this decision. The judgment ensures that daughters have equal rights as sons in coparcenary property, eliminating gender discrimination and upholding the principles of equality and social justice.