Supreme Court Affirms Equal Coparcenary Rights of Daughters Under Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 in PRASANTA KUMAR SAHOO v. CHARULATA SAHU

Introduction

The case of Prasanta Kumar Sahoo v. Charulata Sahu (2023 INSC 318) represents a pivotal moment in Indian property law, particularly concerning the rights of daughters in joint Hindu families. This landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India addresses the interpretation and application of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, and its implications on ancestral and self-acquired properties under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

The litigation involves Prasanta Kumar Sahoo, acting as the legal representative and heir of the original defendant, challenging a High Court judgment which had dismissed his appeal and upheld a compromise between siblings over the partition of ancestral property. The core issues revolved around the validity of the settlement deed, the classification of properties as ancestral or self-acquired, and the rightful shares of the parties involved, especially in light of the constitutional amendments enhancing women's property rights.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court, after a thorough examination of the facts, lower court decisions, and relevant precedents, concluded that the daughters in a joint Hindu family are rightful coparceners with equal shares to their brothers under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The Court invalidated the compromise settlement between the siblings due to lack of proper consent from all affected parties, particularly noting that the settlement lacked the signature of Charulata Sahu, one of the daughters with a vested interest in the property.

Consequently, the Court mandated a redistribution of the property shares in accordance with the amended law, affirming that each daughter is entitled to one-third share in both ancestral and self-acquired properties. The Supreme Court also highlighted the importance of adhering to formal procedures in property settlements and the non-recognition of oral partitions under the amended provisions.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced significant Supreme Court cases that shaped the interpretation of the Hindu Succession Act post-amendment. Notably:

Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma [(2020) 9 SCC 1]: Affirmed that the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 applies retroactively to daughters born before the amendment, granting them coparcenary rights from the date of the amendment.
Ganduri Koteshwaramma v. Chakiri Yanadi [(2011) 9 SCC 788]: Clarified that any change in law during the pendency of a partition suit must be considered in the final decree, ensuring that courts adapt to legislative changes even in ongoing litigations.
Byram Pestonji Gariwala v. Union Bank of India [(1992) 1 SCC 31]: Emphasized the necessity for all parties to consent in settlement agreements in partition suits.
Other cases like Jineshwardas v. Jagrani and Pushpa Devi Bhagat v. Rajinder Singh further reinforced the principles of valid compromises and the importance of mutual consent among all coparceners.

These precedents collectively underscored the judiciary's stance on equitable distribution and the invalidity of settlements lacking comprehensive consent.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's reasoning was anchored in the constitutional mandate of gender equality, reinforced by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The Act was designed to eliminate discrimination against daughters in terms of property rights, aligning with Articles 14, 15(2) & (3), and 16 of the Indian Constitution, which prohibit discrimination on grounds of gender.

Central to the Court's reasoning was the interpretation that the Amendment Act does not merely confer symbolic rights but substantively alters the property rights landscape. The Act mandates that daughters are coparceners by birth, with rights equivalent to sons, and these rights are not negated by prior settlements or unregistered partitions.

Furthermore, the Court emphasized that any compromises or settlements in partition suits must involve all coparceners in consent. The lack of Charulata Sahu's signature on the settlement deed invalidated the agreement, rendering it unenforceable. The judgment also reiterated that oral partitions are not recognized under the amended law, thereby promoting formalized and transparent property settlements.

Impact

This judgment has far-reaching implications for property distribution in joint Hindu families. By affirming the equal rights of daughters, the Supreme Court has reinforced gender equality in property inheritance, ensuring that daughters are no longer sidelined in ancestral property matters. Future cases will likely follow this precedent, promoting the formal registration of settlements and safeguarding the rights of all coparceners.

Additionally, the Court's stance on invalidating settlements lacking full consent serves as a stringent guideline for litigants and legal practitioners, emphasizing the necessity of comprehensive and transparent agreements in property disputes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Coparcenary: A joint Hindu family where the property is owned collectively by all coparceners (typically male members by birth and now females post-amendment). Each coparcener has an equal share and the right to demand a partition.

Partition: The division of property among coparceners, which can be done through a court decree or an executed and registered decree, as per the Amendment Act.

Mesne Profits: Profits arising from the possession of property that could have been earned if the right owner had maintained possession.

Vakalatnama: A legal document authorizing an advocate to act on behalf of a client in court.

Pre-AMended Section 6: Previously, Section 6 allowed the property to pass by survivorship among male coparceners, excluding daughters.

Sub-AMended Section 6: Post-2005, it grants daughters coparcenary rights, allowing them to inherit and partition property equally with sons.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's judgment in Prasanta Kumar Sahoo v. Charulata Sahu decisively affirms the equal property rights of daughters in joint Hindu families as mandated by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. By nullifying an unauthorized settlement and enforcing the redistribution of property shares in favor of daughters, the Court has forthrightly supported gender equality in inheritance laws. This landmark decision not only reinforces the constitutional principle of non-discrimination but also sets a stringent precedent ensuring that future property settlements are conducted with full consent and formal procedure. The ruling empowers daughters, safeguarding their rightful share in ancestral and self-acquired properties, thereby contributing significantly to the progressive evolution of Hindu law.