Hindu Law : Daughter of coparcener in Joint Hindu Family governed by Mitakshara Law gets right of coparcener from the year 2005: Hindu Succession Act, 1956, S. 6 (as amended in 2005)

Respondent No. 1 the plaintiff filed the suit for partition
of the properties. The plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are brothers, defendant
Nos. 4 and 5 are their sisters, defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are the sons of defendant
No. 1. Krushna, the father of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1, 4 and 5 died
in the year 1991 while living jointly with his sons. There had been no partition
of the suit properties by metes and bounds. As defendant No. 1 avoided the
request of the plaintiff for amicable partition of the suit properties, the
plaintiff filed the suit.

The lower Court decreed the suit preliminarily in part on
contest against defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and ex parte against defendant No.
5 with costs.

The Court held that the (Amendment) Act, 2005 was enacted to
remove the discrimination as contained in S. 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956
by giving equal rights and liabilities to the daughters in the Hindu Mitakshara
Coparcenary property as the sons have. The said Act came into force with effect
from 9-9-2005 and the statutory provisions create new right. The provisions are
not expressly made retrospective by the Legislature. Thus, the Act itself is
very clear and there is no ambiguity in its provisions. The law is well settled
that where the statute’s meaning is clear and explicit, words cannot be
interpolated. The words used in provisions are not bearing more than one
meaning. The amended Act shall be read with the intention of the legislation to
come to a reasonable conclusion. Thus, looking into the substance of the
provisions and on conjoint reading, Ss.(1) and (5) of S. 6 of the said Act are
clear and one can come to a conclusion that the Act is prospective. It creates
substantive right in favour of the daughter. The daughter got a right of
coparcener from the date when the amended act came into force i.e.,
9-9-2005.

The contention that the daughters, who are born only after
2005, will be treated as coparceners, is not accepted. If the provision of the
Act is read with the intention of the legislation, the irresistible conclusion
is that S. 6 (as amended by Act 39 of 2005) rather gives a right to the daughter
as coparcener, from the year 2005, whenever they may have been born. The
daughters are entitled to a share equal with the son as a coparcener.