Daughters’ coparcenary rights do not depend on their father surviving the 2005 amendment.

The parties were the four children of Muslappa.

The plaintiffs sued for partition, asserting that the suit properties were ancestral joint-family properties.

The trial court decreed the suit in part, granting the two sons 5/12 share each and the two daughters 1/12 share each, relying on Prakash v. Phulavati.

The defendant appealed; the plaintiffs filed cross-objections and an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC to produce death certificates showing that Muslappa died on 18 May 2009 and his wife, Gouramma, on 15 May 2013.

The first appellate court admitted the additional evidence, dismissed the defendant’s appeal, and modified the decree to grant each child a 1/4 share.

In these second appeals, the defendant argued that the matter should have been remanded after the additional evidence was admitted and challenged the allowance of the cross-objections.

Whether the first appellate court was required to remand the matter for further evidence after allowing the plaintiffs’ Order XLI Rule 27 CPC application.

Whether the first appellate court was justified in granting each of Muslappa’s four children an equal 1/4 share in the suit properties.

Under substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a daughter has the same coparcenary rights and liabilities as a son; the right can be claimed whether she was born before or after the amendment, and the father need not have been alive on 9 September 2005.

The statutory protection preserves dispositions, alienations, partitions, and testamentary dispositions covered by Section 6, including qualifying partitions effected before 20 December 2004.

Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, AIR 2020 SC 3717.

Order XLI Rules 22 and 27 CPC governed the plaintiffs’ cross-objections and application to produce additional evidence.

The death certificates were admitted without objection, and the defendant did not dispute that Muslappa died in 2009.

The High Court held that remand would serve no useful purpose: Vineeta Sharma established that a daughter’s coparcenary right does not depend on her father being alive on the amendment date, and the record disclosed no disputed fact requiring further evidence to determine the shares.

The appellate court was therefore justified in modifying the decree to grant all four children equal shares.

It found no substantial question of law warranting interference and dismissed both Regular Second Appeals, leaving in force the decree awarding each of Muslappa’s four children a 1/4 share in the suit properties.