Daughters Born Prior to 1956 Are Coparceners Entitled to Equal Shares in Ancestral Property

The plaintiff (appellant) filed a suit for partition and separate possession against her brother (Defendant No. 1) claiming a 1/2 share in four suit schedule properties, asserting they were ancestral

The Trial Court dismissed the suit in 2014, holding that Item No. 1 was the self-acquired property of Defendant No. 1 and that the plaintiff was not a coparcener because she was born before the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (born prior to 17.06.1956)

During the pendency of the appeal, both the original plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 passed away and were substituted by their legal representatives

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an equal share in the suit schedule properties as a coparcener despite being born prior to 17.06.1956?

2. Whether Item No. 1 of the suit schedule property is the self-acquired property of Defendant No. 1?

3. Whether the Trial Court’s judgment warrants interference?

The Court primarily applied Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended in 2005, which confers coparcenary status on daughters by birth

It relied on the landmark precedent of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Ors. (2020), which settled that the right is by birth and it is immaterial whether the daughter was born before or after the 1956 Act or the 2005 Amendment, as long as the coparcenary existed as of 09.09.2005

The Court also noted that the precedent relied upon by the Trial Court (Pushpalatha N.V. v. V. Padma) had been overruled by the Supreme Court

Regarding self-acquired property, the Court applied evidentiary principles concerning the burden of proof in establishing the source of funds and individual income

The Court found that the Trial Court’s dismissal based on the plaintiff’s birth date was legally erroneous as per the Vineeta Sharma ruling, which clarified that daughters are coparceners by birth regardless of being born before 1956

However, regarding Item No. 1, the Court observed that Defendant No. 1 was a diploma engineer running a goldsmith business ("Udaya Cuttings"), and the plaintiff failed to provide evidence that any ancestral nucleus or her own funds were used to purchase it

Conversely, Item Nos. 2, 3, and 4 were admitted by Defendant No. 1 to be ancestral properties

Thus, while the plaintiff’s status as a coparcener was affirmed, her claim was restricted to the admitted ancestral properties (Items 2-4) and denied for the self-acquired property (Item 1)

The High Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the Trial Court's judgment dated 29.10.2014. The claim for partition of Item No. 1 was declined as it was proved to be the self-acquired property of Defendant No. 1. No order as to costs was made.