Daughter Entitled to Equal Coparcenary Share Regardless of Father's Date of Death or Marriage Date.

The Appellant (Plaintiff) filed a suit for partition of ancestral properties following the intestate death of her father, Appavu Asari, on May 10, 2004.

The properties were originally allotted to the father in a registered partition in 1992.

The Trial Court granted the Plaintiff only a 1/18 share, reasoning that since she married in 1976, she was ineligible for benefits under the Tamil Nadu Act 1/1990, and since her father died before the 2005 Central Amendment, she could not claim coparcenary rights.

The Appellant challenged this, seeking an equal share.

During the appeal, the court admitted a new document (Ex-A.11, an Aadhar card) to establish the birth year of the grandson of a predeceased daughter.

Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Central Act 39 of 2005, which confers coparcener status on daughters by birth.

Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) 9 SCC 1, which established that the daughter’s right is by birth and it is not necessary for the father-coparcener to be alive on the date of the amendment (September 9, 2005).

Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, to determine the devolution of the father's specific share among his Class I heirs.

The court applied the rule from Vineeta Sharma to overturn the Trial Court’s restrictive interpretation, noting that coparcenary rights are conferred prospectively based on the antecedent event of birth; therefore, the father’s death in 2004 did not bar the daughters from being recognized as coparceners.

Since no registered partition or court decree had disrupted the coparcenary before December 20, 2004, the court recalculated the shares: the coparcenary consisted of the father and five children (two sons and three daughters—excluding the daughter Vasanthi who died in 1991), each initially entitled to 1/6.

Upon the father’s death, his 1/6 share devolved equally under Section 8 among his seven Class I heirs (widow, five children, and the son of the predeceased daughter), resulting in 1/42 share each.

The Plaintiff’s total share was calculated by adding her coparcenary interest (1/6 or 7/42) to her inherited share (1/42).

The High Court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the Trial Court's decree, affirming that the statutory fiction of partition does not disrupt the coparcenary and that daughters born before the amendment are equal coparceners regardless of their father's date of death or their own date of marriage.

No order as to costs was made.