Case Brief on "VINEETA SHARMA VS RAKESH SHARMA" by Suraj Nemade

By Suraj Nemade

BALLB, 5th Sem

ILS Law College, Pune



Citation: Civil Appeal No. Diary No.32601 Of 2018

Bench: Justice Arun Mishra, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, Justice M.R. Shah


Facts of the Case;

In one of the cases, One Ms. Vineeta Sharma (Appellant) filed a case in opposition to her brothers viz. Mr. Rakesh Sharma & Satyendra Sharma, and her mother (Respondents). Sh. Dev Dutt Sharma (Father) had 3 sons, one daughter, and a wife.  He expired on December 11, 1999. One of his sons expired on July 1, 2001 (unmarried). The Appellant claimed that being the daughter she changed into entitled to ¼ of the percentage with inside the assets of her father. The case of the Respondents changed into that when her marriage, she ceased to be a member of the Joint family. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court disposed of the enchantment because the amendments of 2005 did now no longer advantage the Appellant as the daddy of the Appellant exceeded away on December 11, 1999.


The large Bench due to the conflicting verdicts rendered in Division Bench judgments in Prakash & Ors. v. Phulavati & Ors and Danamma ; Suman Surpur & Anr. v. Amar & Ors changed into referred.


Issues of the case:

       Whether the position of the daughter in HUF is of coparceners?

       What will be the effect of the death of the father before amendment 2005, on the daughter’s right over the property?

       Whether the application of amendment 2005 be retrospective?


The case emphasizes the character of the 2005 change in sec 6 HSA. The change applies retroactively to offer advantages conditional springing up even earlier than the passing of such legislation. While explaining the idea of retroactive software of sec 6 publish change, it lets in Daughters to have the identical advantage of succession as a son from her birth. So the prison friction created according to with the notional partition to check the quantity of proportion claimed withinside the unamended Act isn't always tormented by the change. The impact of amended may be visible in a way that any motion triggering partition earlier than change simplest influences the quantity of proportion, now no longer the proper to say. In different words, if the partition is crystallized no extra could be executed in appreciation of change however if the partition isn’t executed the daughter’s proper to say to stay intact. In this situation the judgment emphasized no matter the survivorship of the father, the Daughter gathers the proper coparcener from the start and different associated rights. While giving an opposite view from Prakash v. Phulavati case, The Hon’ble Court held that no matter the lifestyles of the father, daughter get her proper as coparceners In the Prakash v. Phulavati case, the courtroom docket had held that the notional partition prescribed through the proviso to Section 6 of the unamended Act ends in severance of coparcenary belongings with inside the occasion of the predecessor coparcener’s death previous to the 2005 change and consequently no coparcenary belongings are left to be had to be partitioned on the fingers of the daughter claiming beneath neath the 2005 change. However, withinside the Vineeta Sharma case, the Apex Court concluded that the notional partition prescribed through the stated proviso to Section 6 is meant simplest have an effect on the computation of the percentage of the deceased coparcener while he becomes survived through a woman inheritor (as laid out in Class I of the Schedule to the Act) or through a male family member of such woman inheritor and such notional partition does now no longer sooner or later decide the rights and liabilities of the male and woman successors itself, that may simplest be undertaken both thru a registered partition deed or thru a decree of partition drawn through courtroom docket. Contrary to the belief of the Apex Court with inside the Prakash v. Phulavati verdict, with inside the Vineeta Sharma judgment, the Apex Court has held that during the view of the specific language of Section 6 (1) (a), the requirement for a woman successor to say coparcenary rights isn't always in any respect dependant at the predecessor coparcener being alive as at the date the 2005 change comes into force. The purpose of Section 6 of the Amended Act is to raise the character of the woman successor’s proper to succession from that of obstructed history to unobstructed history, which the courtroom docket had now no longer taken into consideration with inside the Prakash v. Phulavati case.