<p>On August 11, the Supreme Court ruled that daughters' coparcenary rights in ancestral property in a Hindu Undivided Family would apply with retrospective effect. It was the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, which gave daughters coparcenary rights in a joint Hindu family property. There were, however, doubts about whether this would hold true if the ancestor had died before the amendment came into force on September 9, 2005. The apex court has now ruled bringing daughters on a par with sons in the devolution of ancestral property. The judgement has been described as a game-changer. Let's find out if it indeed is:</p>.<p><strong> What's a Hindu Undivided Family and what's a coparcener?</strong></p>.<p> A Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) is a family which consists of all persons lineally descended from a common ancestor and includes their wives and unmarried daughters. In an HUF, all the legal heirs jointly hold the property. A coparcener is a person who gets an equal legal right in parental property by birth.</p>.<p><strong>What's the law of inheritance for Hindu families?</strong></p>.<p>Before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, women did not have any share in coparcenary or ancestral properties. On the death of a coparcener, his share devolved on (transferred to) the surviving coparceners. The Act changed this, stipulating that upon the death of a coparcener, his share would not devolve on other surviving coparceners and that the share of the deceased coparcener was to be determined through the notional partition as on the date of death. To that extent, women did not become coparceners but could still inherit the property. (Under the notional partition, the deceased is considered having that share of coparcenary property which he would have got had the partition taken place on the date of his death. In this case, the property is divided by mutual consent or by decree of court.) </p>.<p><strong>What is a coparcenary property?</strong></p>.<p>A coparcenary property is inherited by a Hindu from his father, grandfather or great grandfather. A coparcener cannot claim any precise share as it keeps fluctuating: it increases and decreases by death and birth in the family.</p>.<p><strong>Why was the 2005 amendment made?</strong></p>.<p>Before the amendment, a daughter was entitled to limited share in the coparcenary interest of her father and got no share as a coparcener. Daughters were unable to inherit the ancestral property like sons or other male heirs. But when the amendment came into force, daughters became coparceners by birth, in their own right with the same liability in the coparcenary property as sons.</p>.<p><br /><strong>What was the matter before the Supreme Court?</strong></p>.<p>It was about the interpretation of Section 6 of the Act, which deals with the devolution of interest in the coparcenary property of a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara school of law. (Mitakshara is a legal treatise on Hindu inheritance, written by the 12th-century scholar Vijnaneshwara. It governs the devolution of property to the male members of a joint family and is extended to sons, grandsons and great-grandsons). A reference was made to a three-judge bench following contradictory explanation of Section 6.</p>.<p><strong>What is the court ruling?</strong></p>.<p>Giving a liberal interpretation of the amendment, the court held that in view of the principle of coparcenary, a person is conferred the rights by birth. Similarly, the daughter has been recognised and treated as a coparcener, with the same rights and liabilities as those of a son. It is not at all necessary that the father of the daughter should be alive when the amendment came into force. The daughter would become a coparcener on the basis of birth alone before or after the law was enacted</p>
<p>On August 11, the Supreme Court ruled that daughters' coparcenary rights in ancestral property in a Hindu Undivided Family would apply with retrospective effect. It was the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, which gave daughters coparcenary rights in a joint Hindu family property. There were, however, doubts about whether this would hold true if the ancestor had died before the amendment came into force on September 9, 2005. The apex court has now ruled bringing daughters on a par with sons in the devolution of ancestral property. The judgement has been described as a game-changer. Let's find out if it indeed is:</p>.<p><strong> What's a Hindu Undivided Family and what's a coparcener?</strong></p>.<p> A Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) is a family which consists of all persons lineally descended from a common ancestor and includes their wives and unmarried daughters. In an HUF, all the legal heirs jointly hold the property. A coparcener is a person who gets an equal legal right in parental property by birth.</p>.<p><strong>What's the law of inheritance for Hindu families?</strong></p>.<p>Before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, women did not have any share in coparcenary or ancestral properties. On the death of a coparcener, his share devolved on (transferred to) the surviving coparceners. The Act changed this, stipulating that upon the death of a coparcener, his share would not devolve on other surviving coparceners and that the share of the deceased coparcener was to be determined through the notional partition as on the date of death. To that extent, women did not become coparceners but could still inherit the property. (Under the notional partition, the deceased is considered having that share of coparcenary property which he would have got had the partition taken place on the date of his death. In this case, the property is divided by mutual consent or by decree of court.) </p>.<p><strong>What is a coparcenary property?</strong></p>.<p>A coparcenary property is inherited by a Hindu from his father, grandfather or great grandfather. A coparcener cannot claim any precise share as it keeps fluctuating: it increases and decreases by death and birth in the family.</p>.<p><strong>Why was the 2005 amendment made?</strong></p>.<p>Before the amendment, a daughter was entitled to limited share in the coparcenary interest of her father and got no share as a coparcener. Daughters were unable to inherit the ancestral property like sons or other male heirs. But when the amendment came into force, daughters became coparceners by birth, in their own right with the same liability in the coparcenary property as sons.</p>.<p><br /><strong>What was the matter before the Supreme Court?</strong></p>.<p>It was about the interpretation of Section 6 of the Act, which deals with the devolution of interest in the coparcenary property of a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara school of law. (Mitakshara is a legal treatise on Hindu inheritance, written by the 12th-century scholar Vijnaneshwara. It governs the devolution of property to the male members of a joint family and is extended to sons, grandsons and great-grandsons). A reference was made to a three-judge bench following contradictory explanation of Section 6.</p>.<p><strong>What is the court ruling?</strong></p>.<p>Giving a liberal interpretation of the amendment, the court held that in view of the principle of coparcenary, a person is conferred the rights by birth. Similarly, the daughter has been recognised and treated as a coparcener, with the same rights and liabilities as those of a son. It is not at all necessary that the father of the daughter should be alive when the amendment came into force. The daughter would become a coparcener on the basis of birth alone before or after the law was enacted</p>
