In a patriarchal society like India, where women are generally considered as worthless, they have got very fewer rights over ancestral properties compared to men and the overall impact of this culture is resulting in giving fewer rights and freedom to Indian women when compared to men. Imagine, a son, taking his dad's property after his dad's demise, while legally or justifiably the property must be shared equally by the son, daughter and others (Intestate Succession).

Now, as Supreme court announced the latest amendment in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in 2005 which has been creating chaos in some manner. So, we would look forward that how this three bench court has finally resolved the matter in this text.

Vineeta Sharma Versus Rakesh Sharma And Ors

Vineeta Sharma's judgment is based on the premiss that the purpose of section 6 of the Act, as amended by the 2005 Amendment, was not to have an advantage or retroactive effect on female offspring but to act retroactively. 4 Applicable retroactively to legislation where it provides for entitlement-related benefits that may arise before the approval of that legislation. Although the concept of the retroactive application was explained concerning the 2005 amendment, it was considered that the 2005 amendment makes the inheritance benefit available to female offspring based on past facts, ie female offspring, ie birth 5.

Also, the court was aware that the law required a distinction to be made between the right to demand a bet and the amount of the bet. The right of the co-partner to claim a share in the plot's assets remains stable, although the specific share available to the co-partner fluctuates in family births and deaths and is only determined at the time of separation6. Thus, the court held that the condition of Section 6 of the Act, as amended, the theoretical division concerns only the extent of participation that the co-partner may request but does not primarily affect the right to request participation7.

Consequently, it was held that, under section 6 of the Unamended Act, the death of the semi-final coparcener, which gave rise to the theoretical partition only affected the calculation of the claim, but not the right of action. Since her daughter acquires partner status as a result of her birth as a result of the 2005 amendment, her right to a share under section 6 of the amended law is independent of the theoretical division, according to the Vineeta Sharma judgment, the death of her predecessor before 2005 amendment.

Except for the conclusion that the successor must be alive at the time the 2005 amendment enters into force to claim co-ownership, 8 the judgment in Prakash v Phulavati was set aside on the following grounds:

• In Prakash v. Phulavati, the court found that the theoretical separation provided for in the provisions of Section 6 of the Unamended Act leads to the separation of joint ownership in the event that the predecessor joint owner dies before the 2005 amendment, and therefore not in a co-centric case. According to the 2005 amendment, it should be divided into the hands of the applicant's daughter.
  
  However, in Vineeta Sharma, the Apex Court concluded that the theoretical division provided for in the aforementioned provision of Section 6 only affects the calculation of the proportion of the deceased spouse when the heir has survived (according to Class I of the Act) or the heir or relatives of the heir and the said theoretical division do not ultimately determine the rights and responsibilities of the male and female offspring themselves, which can only be assumed by a registered division deed or a division regulation drawn up. by court 9.
  
• Contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court in Prakash v Phulavati, Vineeta Sharma, the Apex Court held that, because of the express language of section 6 (1) (a), a woman's successor does not depend on whether the partner or predecessor is alive at the time the 2005 amendment enters into force.
   
• The purpose of Article 6 of the amended law is to emphasize the nature of the right of a succession of the successor in title to unimpeded succession, which was not considered by the court in Prakash v Phulavati.

Conclusion
We have discussed the case-laws relating with section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act in the above texts. Now, as section 6 of Hindu Succession Act follows Survivorship Rule which transfers ancestral property to only sons in the offspring which was removed on 9th September 2005 but chaos created in the mind of people questioning whether the father should be alive or not and else discussed in above case laws has been finally resolved and it has been clearly said that a woman or daughter has an equal right in ancestral property whether the father is alive or not also a daughter would inherent liabilities of her father after his demise.

References

1. https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/32601/32601_2018_33_1501_23387_Judgement_11-Aug-2020.pdf
2. https://www.mondaq.com/india/wills-intestacy-estate-planning/975930/retrospective-prospective-or-retroactive-application-of-the-hindu-succession-amendment-act-of-2005-decoding-the-vineeta-sharma-verdict

Written By Vishesh