Blog Read



The most recent development in India regarding Partition was on 11 August 2020. The supreme court of India pronounced its judgment on that day regarding the equal rights of the Daughter to inherit joint Hindu family property. The rights of Partition of Property are gives under Hindu Succession Act. A three-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra gave this verdict. To quote the judgment said by the Justice would be “A daughter always remains a loving daughter.

A son is a son until he gets a wife. A daughter is a daughter throughout her life”. Senior advocate Bishwajit Bhattacharya present that as daughters are equal as a son in all matters so squashing the earlier provisions given in Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, they should also get the equal right of inheritance of Hindu Family property

as ‘Coparcener’, which means a person who has the birthright regarding some property.

Amendment passed on 2005

It was also given that the Amendment pass in 2005 would be applicable to all daughters who were alive when the particular Amendment was being done and this applies irrespective of the fact that whether the father was alive or not when the 2005 Amendment was pass. Now the question arises that what about the settlements which have already been done after the year 2005 and

where the daughters didn’t get their rights? For such cases, a daughter of a particular case should prove that she was unknown of the facts or

was denie her rights at the time the settlement was done. The relevance of these claims should be check by proper proof.

In a case if a bigger family doesn’t want to reopen the case again then they should settle the case among themselves by again distributing the assets through the previous deed. But if a daughter was given the equal right for a partition happen after 2005 and

she denied it knowingly then the deed will be applicable on her no matter what.However,

the Supreme court alleged that an oral partition held prior to 2005 much be bearing some substantial proof to support it and

the same settlement should be challenge in court.


Drop your comment