Miss R. Kantha v. Union Of India Repre..., Karnataka High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

W.P No. 10276/2007 (GM-RES)

Advocates

Sri. Shankar S. Bhat, Advocate for Petitioner
Sri. Aravind Kumar for Respondent No. 1, Smt. A.R Sharadamba, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No. 2

Judges

Anand Byrareddy, J.

Acts

4_ subsiitution of Section 6 by the prcsg:"1":'i"Set.;-liL"1"'fA"1" i 2005. Section 6, as subsli"1"ulcd""S}"'--Act
;{4;:>.z4,i:3a3.v_(I~i'ai*nal_Viv.ca anmdmenl} Act, "1"994 (23 of "1"994) Miaeu'm;%%rnm:j%3{3;7."1"994
"Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005 (Act 39 032005). % ..e_"1"EE.S}Pi'fi7;!:~'VI'V}VZ)WEVI~JTS
section 6-A of the Hindu Suueessiy Act, "1"955 (As.-"1"23 ("1"994).
Section 6 ("1") (C)u Hindi}. -f:uecessi.OvVL_'A,t:"1"iendi3tenl act
Amending Acts indicates S243' "t::3ject2"ve: the 2'cn"1"ovaI
Section 6(l )(e;) of the Himiu Adi undar Act 39
Hindu Successioxl {Amendment} Act, 2895. (5)
Hindu 4 ' V " ___ " Siicsion Amendment Act,
Section 6(I)(c)
Section 6("1")

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner, aged about 36 years, filed a suit in O.S.31/2007 before the Bangalore court for partition and sale of joint family properties. The trial court dismissed the suit as not maintainable based on the proviso to Section 6(1)(c) of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Act 39 of 2005). Subsequently, the petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 6(1)(c) of the 2005 Amendment Act by filing a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The respondents, including the Union of India and the State of Karnataka, were served but chose not to file any statement of objections. The matter was heard and reserved on 9-6-2009.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the proviso to Section 6(1)(c) of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, which saves dispositions, alienations, or partitions of coparcenary property effected before 20th December 2004, is constitutionally valid.
Whether an unmarried daughter can seek partition of undivided coparcenary property during the lifetime of her father notwithstanding the proviso to the 2005 Amendment Act.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

The proviso to Section 6(1)(c) of the 2005 Amendment Act is arbitrary and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by discriminating against daughters in respect of alienations or dispositions of coparcenary property prior to 20th December 2004.
The petitioner contended that daughters are entitled to equal rights in joint family property as sons under Section 6-A of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (as amended in 1994), and these rights could not be taken away by the 2005 Amendment Act.
The proviso is not retrospective and lacks a clear rationale or consequence for rights accrued under the Karnataka Amendment Act.
The proviso arbitrarily restricts daughters from questioning alienations or dispositions made prior to 20th December 2004, thereby denying them equal succession rights.
Cited a Division Bench decision of the Karnataka High Court in Manjamma and others v. L. Karnataka and others, 1999 (2) Writ to support the constitutional goal of equality in partition rights among Hindus.
Argued that the proviso defeats the legislative intent of the 2005 Amendment Act and is inconsistent with the constitutional mandate of equality.

Respondents' Position

The respondents, namely the Union of India and the State of Karnataka, were represented by counsel but did not file any statement of objections or contest the petition.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Rao, 1985 Supreme Court	Consideration of inheritance rights of female members under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act and recognition of female coparcenary rights.	The Court referred to this decision to explain that a female member inheriting interest in joint family property cannot be treated as ceasing to be a family member and that rights inherited by daughters should not be negated.
Manjamma and others v. L. Karnataka and others, 1999 (2) Writ	Constitutional goal of equality in partition rights and validity of Section 6-A of the Hindu Succession Act.	Used to support the argument that daughters have equal rights in partition and that classification made by the amendment is reasonable and connected to the objective sought.
Supreme Court decision in Vijayalakshmi v. Union of India (cited indirectly)	Distinction between married and unmarried daughters and gender bias in inheritance laws.	Referred to demonstrate that the classification by the Amending Acts is aimed at removing discrimination and is a valid legislative objective under Article 14.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court analyzed the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and its amendments, focusing on Section 6 as substituted by the 2005 Amendment Act which grants daughters equal coparcenary rights as sons. It examined the proviso to Section 6(1)(c) that preserves all alienations and partitions effected before 20th December 2004, noting that this proviso restricts daughters from challenging such prior alienations.

The Court considered the constitutional principles of equality under Articles 14 and 16, emphasizing that the proviso creates an arbitrary distinction between sons and daughters by allowing sons to benefit from prior alienations while daughters cannot question them. It noted the absence of a clear rationale or nexus between the proviso and the object of the Amendment Act.

The Court also reviewed prior judicial pronouncements, including the Supreme Court's position that daughters inheriting coparcenary interest cannot be treated as ceasing to be family members. The Court observed that the proviso negates the legislative intent of granting daughters equal rights and is inconsistent with constitutional guarantees.

Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the proviso is not retrospective and does not specify consequences for rights accrued under state amendments such as the Karnataka Act, thereby creating legal uncertainty and discrimination.

In sum, the Court found the proviso to Section 6(1)(c) to be arbitrary, lacking reasonable nexus with the legislative objective, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Holding and Implications

The Court held that the proviso to Section 6(1)(c) of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, is arbitrary and unconstitutional as it violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India by discriminating against daughters in respect of alienations or dispositions of coparcenary property prior to 20th December 2004.

The direct effect of this decision is that daughters are entitled to equal rights in joint family property without being barred by the proviso from questioning prior alienations or partitions. No broader precedent beyond the parties is explicitly discussed in the opinion.

Show full summary ...

Miss R. Kantha v. Union Of India Represented By Its Cabinet Secretary, Ministry Of Law, Justice And Company Affairs And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT 0;: KARNATAKA DATED THIS THE 8**i)A'Y';T'£JI;Y"..§)Fv«ﬁO&}9_ BEFoRE%*%% %%%% f % THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTI'-CE'- ANAN£)V"1"BY"1""1"AP.fEVDBY 'WRIT P"1"';'rm0"1"§ N;;;"1"c§ﬁ;'.é%{>a7 (ex/"1";REs) BETWEEN:

D,'o.Sri.Dodd::.IIi:§'='£"1"h A L Aged mat 3ﬁr. 3','eaf§;

Residing; aa%I;¢ban;:m"1":»a,jT-{f % Razﬁagofidanahalﬁ, A: . ' Bangalore Squib " V.

BangaIc;re--56i3' Raprziscnicd by G.'P,A. .

Smt.A.R.Sharadamba, Additional? &ivGc5veemn':ent Advocate for Reﬁﬁmdenl No.2)' .' V' ' _ This Vv'r*§i Péﬁiiigzn "is {£"1"-3;: Uf:dei';A"1"'§§'ele 226 and 227 of the Constitution; {if "Ind§&""1"pra3<iV:ag"to decIart'-- the proviso to Section 6 ("1") (C)£u Hindi}. -f§:uecessi.OﬁvVL_'A,t:"1"iendi3tenl act (act 39"1"05) which came irriev -eﬁlect "§§fith"'~Eifeci F;'en*:. 9.9.2005, in 5:2) far as it pertains to saviﬁg'9£_' 'aliaenaiéums/parﬁﬁun etc, by deviating the said prcsvise a3"1"ira."viree.Ih.-fa Article "1"4 and "1"6 of Constitution oflndia &'e"1"c.; ' ' This been heard and reserved an 9-6.2009 .__and':ei:3I:;i"1"3g..%_0n fer'p--ren'oance:nent of orders this day, the Conn: ' Vdciixwred ﬁre' E'eivlowing:--

QBMSR x fags writ petition is ﬁled seeking to challenge the e'~__'e:_.vinsiiiuEiunai validity of [he Proviso to Seclien 6(i )(s;) of the VT "Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005 (Act 39 032005). % ..e_"1"EE§.S}Pi¢'f§i7;!:~'VI'V}VZ)WEVI~JTS kk

2. The background to the: pctiliun is as The petitioner aged about 3633 Que Dcxldaramaiah Raddy [kvddarmaiah Ruddy is alive. a mi: suit in 0s.s.3"1"04.r2007 bcI'eirfﬁ«:;_..§3I;: Bangalore . The suit is fur paxiifisn; anti" 3w¢;¢ of joint family properties. Thu plainﬁﬂ' has called in in respect of the suit propurtiés as 'nu! bizidézig» égjifaying the Pmvisu to Section 6(l )(e;) of the Himiu Adi undar Act 39 of 24305, the {rial court \}«a:§' 5m:l§"1"?'"1"r:}{i'_~ "1";3cj.;_l'i':-}mi:s.~.~: the suit as nut mainlainable. It was at that ~V slag; prcsani mil petition is ﬁled qucstivning the: K n V' .. i<;:$;:s'ii!;;:£ivc;na"1" vaiidily of the Proviso Eu Secliun 6(i Xv) cf Hindu 4 ' V " ___ " Siiééﬂcﬁsion Amendment Act, 2005. The mspcmdemix, narmsly, {he Union wf India and the State of Kamalaka having been scrvcd, and though art: rcpmscntcd by Counsel, have not choscn to ﬁle; statamcnt of oéji' ' the contentions of the Counsel for vlirze' mtiiioncfyt. of t j t matter having been adjourned on s¢:vot*;"1"I'--oooasio;.-ts "to cIiat53::AVih;f. parties to do so.

3. The Counsel hcaxd oi tungﬂ"1"_ It is contended 'obj.r:ct.A'oft "Hindu Succession cqtaality in the matter of partiliorivtioit among Hindus by treating the daughiors which is aimed at the constitutional goai"-oi? equality, tvitlioijt discrimination in the matter of partition, A 'on -the' of Ilfis that the Proviso to Section 6("1") lays down gzotiwithstanding the amendment, any disposition, aticnation, .' any partition, or testamentary disposition of propcriy " httvétzich had taken place before the 20"' December 2004, would not bc affcctcd or invalidated. In other words, any such alicnations or disposition prior its 20* December 2004, etc saved as; agfaissegxhe right ofa daughter of 3 cu-parctrner- It is urged " was entitled to an equal right in me joint'faﬁxilg"p"1"%npert§zi'.utie§ef' Fe section 6-A of the Hindu Suueessiﬁﬂy Act, "1"955 (As.-"1"23 (£"1"994). said W into eITect fmm 30.7."1"994? eari petitioner under the Kamalaka taken away by virtue of the of 2005) . IE is '.z¥eef'ued could nut be taken away by subs{iv'..uf--.iunV of Amendment Act. Further, the Prr.wi,~:u.v to .'}\.c"1" 39 of 2005, is not rtziruspeeliye. née.rﬁeasL2ne"'essigned in the Statemeni of Objecis and the Amendment Act 39 of 2005 in providing suc§i"a cut-?e3iT'da£e. Then: is no indication as to the consequence " :e,;giui""Sla"1"e amendment Act, resuliing in rights having accrued .' ti,» Ve'dz:"1"ugh"1"er under the State Amendment Act The Pmvise is " Qirbilrary and uncunsiituiiunal, Fer ii discriminates between a sun and a daughter, for if, is open to a sun {:3 question aiienatiuns and § The Cuunsci For the pctiliuncr would aiaso iv» 2"1" Division Bench decision in 4\/'anjc2m.*:zc:..;md V3. of L. Kamaiaica and others; "1"999 (2) \Vii6I§iE"¥, pf ' Sccliun 6-A of the Hindu A6"1", "1"990, was called ,iii~.g,}"ut:S'¥;§'fLii'"1":'.I;:S:' uﬂ:"1"'£:(§f"1"s'[i;u"1"iuna} and violativt: of Article "1"4 The said clause having made a_, ' daughters namely, a'i"1"Vrv"1"'n: «ﬁdjiintéizncezncni uf the Amendment A3"1", in claim a share: in pmpcrty, as was avaiiabfﬁ daughlcr or a daughitsr married after =.,{}"1"c"-ig§;;fc?fc;ct;x.:;nl <§Vf tii£:'VAct. It was held that [ha object of daughicrs and the: cases uf paxiiiiun alrttady the appliuaiiun uf the Act, apps-am in be masunabin H inléiﬁicd to awid reopening of the pariitiuna which were ﬂﬂbciéd in the family. And that then: was it deﬁnite: nexus "'ii£:{we:cn the slassificaliuns made and the ubjcci suughi. in be achieved by providing Clausdd) c3fScciion 6-«A uf {ha Ad. The Counsel, however, wuuid submit that the raiiesgf that deeisiun ought not to fetter the entertainment Q3': petition as the grmmd of ehailenge cannot be said " we

5. The Hindu Succession. Ac-"1", deatiiig succession among I Iindus came "force Of!'-I $hn¥$;§ "1"956. This Act bruught about in the "1":r2:&t.§'Vt't.i'!f_:a:;i($ce;:sion and gave rights which were hitherto iiI3knQW:I.I',=.V2.Ht'V."1";'t7i;;ttittI"1"' 'twumanﬁs property. However, it diz"1"_""1"iti'§;[.§":i:[:e::i*?;rc€ rights of those who are members: Of2!{}";ifﬁ[E"1"k.§ihiiIt'téi»Vt.{Z£»'-:3tif£J{§§}%£"1"'}' except to provide rules for dcveivutiori efttize-j Gf a deceased in certain cases. The Act laid douimée uniti;n:i._ai"1"d -eumprehensive system of inheritance and xinteV"1"'¥ali:«:_,___.ta3 persons governed by Mitakshzim and as also to those in certain parts of southern Indiatvéhe.Ay=§eteA.e}2reviuusIy guvernmi by the Mummakkaiiayam, and Nambudri Systems. The Act applies to any 'jwhu is a Hindu by rcfigiun in any uf its fauna or

-.._ﬂ;}cyelopmen"1"s including 3 Vimshaiva, a Lingayat or a fuﬂvwer of If} inicstaic, the Act lays dawn a set uf gcmzrai rulcsﬁii In I3.

Before the present mncndmciii..AS'euiiunT,'fé". {ﬁr}, devolution of interest in pmpcri$i'L'L-2933 :4s"1"bV!"iox$fS::~V': "6. Devolution of - When 3 male Himiu dies after th¢A€Q§"1""1"n"1"ex:'¢éii3c-'bf at the time of his death an iatergsét i%rop_eﬂ "1"I"lVi."L'c:'i:.I"lHf:é3l'6Sf in the propeify shall devolve by mﬂmbéfﬁ of the and not in astcordange with « . % ' < "

Provieiédu had leﬁ him surviving a female relative _ 'in"Class f(§f"3i}@__g'$G§"1"6dlEi6 or 3 maﬁa relative specifiesd in ihaf class vsrAhG«9i§:in"1";§' 'ihrc:;;gi;.s"1"ich femaie relative, the interest of the éeazeaseé in the éhali devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as V V' _ the cage niayh iinﬁer "1""1""1"35 Act and not by survivorship. " ; 'ExpIanation in Fm the purposes of $"1""1"2.': Seating the interest egrf a Rﬁtaksmta czswparcener shaﬂ be deenxed to be the share in the pmperty "'«:Vufi.2hfw0"1":ld have been aliotted to him if a partition of fin: property had iaicen % H griace inmiediataiy before his cfeaﬂa, irrespective of wizefhegi W23: IE5' ._V claim panitien I)!' not. ».

Exp-ianatian 2. M Nothing contaixaed ift«-thé'provis9v§:rA be constmed as enabling a person who"h.a}é"separat¢d. hiﬁ"1".s:§}f ffagnz the before the death 0"1"' 2"1" deceased or any his Eaéiisﬁi ;::3Ef\i""1"i"1"_ A-on mteﬁxsj} a share in the interest refszrred tr) 'ther6i:"1"."

Befun: Q? cudifying the rules of samcession, " family under Mitakshara School law. ,!Vhz_; ¥.':'Ml> i&€a§i'{:r¢}iﬁa"1"ily juint nut only in csiaic but aprépcrly, in cuniradisiinclion with the in religiuus matturs Es £&*t.:'Ii=. _ _ absulgzjé 'V or scpé{:r2zi¢__ grgtgmriy of any individual co-pare-snag N dt,:vt>l_,v_c>:;§_Vi"1"p"1";n' S'uxjxiving co-parwmsrs in the famfiy, according In {IiE:.of(§£é_v:;_In§it}n by survivurship. " * 6 dealing with {he dc-vuiuiion of the interest of a 'Hindu in prupcriy and while recognising the ruk: uf '«..(.:ie'£ri}It:liun by sunriwrship among the members of the co- pamcnaxy, made an exccpiiun to the rule: in the proviso. According to the pmvisu, if the deceased had left him surviving at fcmate rciativc: speciﬁed in Class I of st:-htzdtztc "1", ur a male rsiative speciﬁed in that Class who claimed through such i?:"1"nair:.___r¢:!aiivc, the interest of the deccascct in the MitaI<:shar2t.._"e§t§§p;;rs.$é:z;ar}* property dcvutvcd by testamentary or intestate the Act and not by survivurship- "1"3xv'i£:tt§§f3'ar:;f:i3g:r~:VVttIt:c'lt:r Scutiun 30 to make 2"1" ttsstamtmtary (tﬁ-,'${'.'§'*'(.I'!'-:ilii.I*I"kZv,.{V§*'.t: ufjgctivitted intcmcstin the Joint family pmpc"1"'"Vt}A_V't' _ V ' Thu rule: of survi\:{_3}3i:i;:ﬁ_ "V«_i:3t:L§'t;:pcratiun only -- where: {he did .3;-.-axrc' him surviving a female rctativt: spcciﬁedtiizg Class}. zjrta ,Itiatéfclativc speciﬁed in that Class who claims' titmugh "su_g;:hV fcntaaic rciativc, and (ii) when tht: dcccastrd hact.,nut _;i"1":¢d3V£:'~-tgstamcntary disposition of his undivided share in The Schcduic tn the Act mad with Seutttin. gprtrtiidcd thc Fe-Iluwing twcivc rctatitma: as Class I heirs.- ' ft_'3«3Vr"1"V;t"daughter; widow; mother; sun of a pm-deceased son; dztnghtcr at a prc~dcc-cased sun; son at prc-dmscascd daughter; daughfcr :3"1"" a pm-deceased daughter, widow son; sex: of prc--dc¢;::ascd sun uf as preldéccasad ':i'z::;;vg;;'i:""1"cr '.¢}$' "' rc--dc<.:cascd :-sun of a re-deceased S'on;"'widuw .(f;.':," . "re-deceased son Ufa prc~dc2ccas¢:d sun.

Section 6 as it ﬁne existence: uf co.

parcunazy pfugﬁfffé' gt)-pa"1"'ccncr for the application qf Vsurvivorship. The head unit: ufA:':i*%§aa"1" interest in ctrparccnary pr0pcr£y "x_A T ﬁzain pmvisien in ihc «::ITcut that "his in"1"cz*r:slEi:;«.V[%I"1"t: devalue: by survivursfxip upon ihc .survi.i{ffzg;>_mcmbcrs'5 'i'"1"""1"'dicVa£c:d that the dcvoiution by survivurship is wigh' rt§fz:."1"AV"t:x*:{:z::T._£"L;. the deceased e;upan;c:m:r's interest alunc' [his t\Fi{.3%I"[:{':"1".Li{::I"1"L)£iUn£ii ariiliun cuntcm Ialcd in Ex lamaiion I % 4% P P p that for ihc; asccrtainmcni of the interval of the deceased in a Mitaksham cu-pamcnary property indie-a."1"cd.Ihat was no disrupﬁon of the entire: ¢:u-paz*c::nary. Ii fuﬁowcd that g canrzot go back or: that a.s'S"1"£rrlp!i0r.! and ascerta;'r;s the share of the heirs withom' reﬁzremse to itmgéilf ' the corisequerices which ﬂow frzzarrt real ,c?;i%'iifi(§}I have to be i¢:gic¢:Zly worked' -zytzpg H2}:ich_-:rze.».«wi;§ '-- _ the snhare of the heirs rmzst be aS;:é'r{£"1"i?'ge¢i7"0#£_ the basis (fail they had' sepa'ra£ea'ffo_rri {ﬁe an¢§§}.§efé* arid n K " had received a share :'}*.'i_ "1"":'V.{eV2 p¢2Pti§ior: _}§9}ii¢_:}'é"._;}2iiaI'~ taker: place cfzzrirzg the pf ~ The alfafrrzertt 0d',"éf}ii.$' 3}:-.ﬁre:.i,$ ir:43£ Vc'{?AjE?!?;><>ec"1"?24rc2'l step devised mereﬁy for flu? jiiiipvéésé of Wz5f'kf?:g out some orhc-2:" céfééfzgsiorg.' 22;! 2':_'ec£'£ec;F éértcz' accepted as 'aiﬁjsncrété reériinejz, scametiiirig that came! be Z"{'6C(7?l3§E"1"?j££3'§"'»4.{ft.§'£2" 'aK5'};P{."I'..'"V.t'..' allattea' to :3 in an actzzai pimfiiiart V'e;§a}m<:i£.ggerzerarfiv be recalfeef. ﬁze ' ' L§rzes}if:3'£>I¢;V kxérélfsgry ofthis pz)s'iri<;sr: is that the heir ?-f'wi33* gear hisvéfﬁzer shczre Er: the irzferest which the 'had it: the cowpazrcenary propergi at the I235' a'ea2'h. in acidz'tie.>r: to the share which he .-_j£:ir -2;-ﬁe received or rrzzzsi ire deemed :0 }:ave2 received a - Hi}: the m:»tior:c:Z partiriorz. "

V' in State ufﬁa/"ctizarashfra V. Narayan Run, "1""1"!}? "1"985 Sﬁprenm Cmzri 7"1"6, the Supreme Court carefully considered the '- dtzcisiun in Gurztpuzfs case and pointed Gui lhai Gumpaa".s' 6336 has to be [mated as an auihuriiy (only) for the posi_"1":§u'x2«' :£is'_i_';c::"1" a fcmak: member who inherits an interest in j_Is~§a"1"-- gwgérly under section 6 of (ht: act ﬁlus a Ra"

willingness lo gt: out of the Ii::;zVa'vi'§.§{Vsh;{"1"v'¢Q)u3d_ the interest she has inheﬁfed have been nulionally ailotiud in I to Section 6 of the Act. But il.vt;3j 33"1"_t_)l ﬁmpositiun {hat she: ceases lu on the death of a main

-"'ilLlV%l'.il'6Sl in the family pmpcrly devolves !h£:rV wmiiﬁon to scparalzs hm':-:c3f frum the _ 'V A ietgstlx'"1"'ia:.§.§ﬁ§;;__§:f:uuld no doubt urdinarily be szarritzd to its »3§igi--::gi uni the purpusus fur which it is enacted but it that. It is no duubl [ruc that the right of ii _femal't: ﬁe the inicresl inherited by hefin the ﬁxmﬁy pmpcriy A " }§§Led on the date of the death :3? a male member under Sccijun 6 :.:f {he Act but she cannul be ircalcd as having ceased to be a member of [hrs family withuul her vuiilion as otherwise it will 36226 to sirangc: results wh£a:h maid not have been in the cuntemplatiun <,)fPar}ian"1"t:ni when it enactcd that pruvision and which might also not be in the interest of such females.

The above was the posiﬁun of law as it 4_ subsiitution of Section 6 by the prcsg:"1":'i"Set.;-l«iL"1"'fA"1" i 2005.

Section 6, as subsli"1"ulcd""éS}"'--Act W¢:ﬁlrdclt':VcVl below for ready rcfcrcnnﬁ '_ V V V "6. Devolution _i5r2t¢"1"*é;s%t i}"1" property ("1") 93"1"4"1""1""1"6. fi""C» t}} tlwi.«iccxxiitiéﬁzscfeizzérlt of the Hindu $2}CI}5§"4'ﬁi'§$it?2"1"!4(;3!.;i"1"&E3#ii"i3¥"1"€3lt§}AC"1", 2005, in a Joint Hindu " fai2"1"iiy'gs}#*¢ii"1"z%§i"t"1"ié Mitaksh-a."1"-a law, the daughter

-afa ct)-yarcetiair £3"1"3"1""1"},-

V «$2"1") by bixﬂat co-pameneg' in "1""1"8"1"' own right in the j A ~._,4:_'sé,tx"1"é§:':r:a"1"2;"1"e2*as the 3"1"3:"1"; {§3&V§§&vé'§$}"1"§§. same rights in the co-parcetxary propesty as 's§~3aAe§""vAsIe3uld have bad if she had been 2"1" san; " subject to the sznxae liabilities in respect of the said c0=~par::enar§I property as that of a son, and any refererzce to a Hinéu MitaI<:sha.ra shad} be deezried £0 inciude a reference to a ciaughter of 3 cc,:»--parceI"1"s3T: Provided that nothing contained iI't_ :ﬂli§;. " Section shall aﬁéct or iiivalidgte a"1""1"y'.'cii§§k"3-é'i:ti.dé"1"w alieqiation inciuding any ;:;?n'titi»c,)"1""1"A jjo2W_tést;"1""1""1"3e:x!éi:3r f disposition of pmpez'ty_which takezr 'be*fc§"1"'e A ' " V ' the 20"' day ofI)ecernV!$e"1"j,:"'.?&{}t)4. (2) Any "'g:2je;per£}}mtc}é Qa fe:"1"ﬁé.Ie'AVHir"1"du be,-comes erltitlecié' ("1") 3"1""1"23"1"2 be held bya.I:er v}»*i'ﬁ:- 'iz"1";f:id"1"e$:.ﬁs " ':':o-parcenary oxvxxefsiiig .3I"1"a§!_l " notwithstanding any other law for .. the-_ utita;_i'§é,~ asV;.:4'<;pet"1"y capable of being cf 'by tesfatllexltary disposition.

(3V) :"1" Hindu dies aﬂef the " u$3<3I33.IIlé.'a2s;?_$:fiVit":!!t: of the Hindu Successicn . E5"ofAii"1"¢:"1"_2d"1""1""1"et"1"i) Act, 2005, his interest in the property :§";h§i"1";§ Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara iz§ééié:,--: devolve by testamentary or intestate v--..'Si"1"cc:;=€>ssi0"1":, as the case znay be, under this Act and " by sa2~'viv0rs}"1"ip, and the co-pamenary property shaii be deemed to have been divided as if a paxtitiam had taken 93366 and,-

(ahhe daughter is allotted the same share as is aifoitad to a son;

é $9 ("1")) the share of a pie-deceased sun or 3. A ' daughter, as they would have got had f_§l¢3'-- at the time of partition, 3 .. l _ surviving child of such pre-£i'ep;%eéa=sezd soil' 9!' "of .s;u;ll'--~ l p,,¢.de=s;*eased daugl"1"te"1"';laﬁd..V "1" (:3) the sahare of the :;?l"1"'il.(l:l_ pre» son 0"1"': of a ~daugl"1"tef, such child would llavcl g§,r3_t'l"1"é:é alive at the time x)f_tl;z}_.par"1"iii{§ii,' the child of such Q? son or a asjﬁzelligaée may be-.

"1" Exglléiiatieyﬁl.F:*:§<,:il"1"e:_.purposes of this sub-Swtiml, ,£l"1"é«.i:"1"{ea--'e§f;t' _l9Iltaks}2a"1"'a shall be deetxled to '$l}ll"1"'t} in l:llé7p"1"'opet"1":y that would have been l 'V lallotteil a panition ofthe moperty had taken ,, yiyiaée.fzinrlediately befasre his deatll. irrespective ref l . :"'vsyl:ai;l"1"e_:"1"fi;;-3 was entitled to; claim partitiml or not (4) After the atozmzlegrcexrxerit of the Hindzu " _ Successiexr (Atnen¢ne"1"2t) Act, 2(}i)5, no Couxt shall "1"*e~ct3gt2ise any right to p:'«.)ceed against a son, granclson or great-graz"1"dse.m fez" the Iwovery of am! debt due ﬁ'0IIl his father, gmzldfatlser at great»- grandfather solely on the ground of the pious obligation under the Hindu law, of such 5:0"1""1", grandson or great-g:'andson to disc§"1"a:'gé'._'£"1"2"1"}{*T2;iii:}"1" ' -- debt; _ Provided that in ﬁg of'-v_a:iy aee;:% % contracted before t}"1"e' gL':i:;x"1""1"endé;2"1"e"1""1"t pf Hi:-"xiii: Succession (A"1"nendn"1"eiit}. AcL .2x'}.95V, nxétilirxg contained in tiaié ;~;.z"1"A_£3>-S_+;*;aV;*t2'«_3'V:A"1""-3:2;-.é.~.i:IL'aﬂ'es:t-- (3) the right any against the sQ:"1";ggf:ittds0x"1"0:' gféai->g>,g;a"1"ikimn;a;as the case may " H H " j»('"1"w_) a.:iy-- ah;é£"1";iti4":n -made in respect of or in ""._saiti§;fac:t_i6;~§'.'oS§Vany's:"1":§.f-"1"debt, and any such right or aIi:3patiQti"'3§:é't§§_ "E2e:}enfor"ceabie under the mic': of ' * pious 0bIig2"1"tim:'"1"?t"1"ﬂ"1"e same manner and to the same i;e.w;ten£ as it Viiiféiilld have been enforceabie if the (Axrlendureznt) Act, 2005 had not u'Ix%%;~,':;:..ej33ﬁted.

' .. iI3"1":§r;;fa;:ati<}"1""1"-F0"1"' the },)li"1"'p<)?S€S of clause (3), the éxpx*essi~.m "son", "grandson" or "great-grandson" shall be deemed to refer to the 30:"1", maxidsmx er great»-gramkon, as the case Ina}; be, who was burn :32' adopted prior {:3 the csmnnencement ef the Hindu Successioxl {Amendment} Act, 2895.

(5) Nothing arontained in this section ' pamtion, which has been effegg-gee: befc:e"ih.éf££}""1"' day_ V_: " of December, 2004.

Explanation-Fm' t"1"xeV»T.g§i::pose5"' gf V "partition" means any paéffitiﬁgx-zgxadé of a deed of pﬁgiifjmi jégjef-,:i's"1";:red the Registration Act, # of partition ef'f'ecte§",_§:i3},;_ a §o:i;"1"=.V_'* ~ 2 ' considcfﬁliﬁﬁi " ' _ lu Section 6(I)(c) cf lhc: Hindu . .. (figilﬂtgiidﬁlﬂni) Act, 2005 is arbitrary and of Article "1"4 of the Constiiuiizm uf India as it tsqual right in a daughter of a co-parmsncx} to any dispcysiliun or alienation of ccrpanxsnary Npruperty prior to 2{3.i2.2€)04)vis~&~vis a sun.

b) Vihclhcr the pcliﬁioncr, an unmarried daughter, cuuld seek paﬁitiun uf undivided co-panscnary property during @ the Iife--"1"imc: of hcr fathttr, nutxvi"1"hsia"1";¢§§n§§_ Sm.'-ccssiun (Amtndmcnl) As:-"1"; 3995 H " " 'Q '< é It was canvassed that a.=z'igI_"1""1" of pciiliuncr under the Hindu Suc<;{4§;:é>.z4,i:§3a3.v_»(I~i'ai*nal§_§Viv.ca ﬁanmdmenl} Act, "1"994 (23 of "1"994) Miaeu'm;%%rnm:j%3{3;7."1"994 --» it) an equal sham in the cuupargtsnazy"pr£fp§t-tgfgf family, in [arms of L-motion rgads as fulluxvs:

.... daughter in «:0»-

' anything wntained in seem 5 this' m;A'%%% 3 Eint Iiittdit Family governed by

5.--.":;-iithkghara fhe daughter 9f 2"1" co-parcener shall bgcanie 3 e::«:s--parcener in her own right in ' ma.nner as the son and have the same.

the co-parcenary property as she wnuki " _ have had ifshe had been a son, imltwive ofthe right £9 claim by sunrivmﬁship and shall be subject to the same iiabilily and disabiiities in reapeci thereto as the sea;

("1"3) at a partition in such a Jaint Himiil Faniily the co-pamenmy gtoroperty shali be so @ divided as to allot to a daughter the same share §§"is< --. :_. aﬂottabie to 3 sen;

Prmideii that me share whi"1":J."1"_ a _ son at a predeceased daughtar vizguld gist "1"at if"1"a ' " V: ._ panititm if he or she hxlbwix aéiiveléf the §5f' "1" ' the partition, shall be the,-A 'é"1""1"rtviv5.:;"1"g of such predeceased son sugsh daughter: __ ._ _ _ Proviziezd si"1"';:;ii"~%;V"_2zil'ii:itfgzb"1"e to the precieceafmi of a been alive at me' i§;;i"1"eT'£:f'3ti}e: 'p.aj;}'.iftii;:"1",v":i:;héi"1"V"1"A as aiiotred to the _ c"1"a.E"1"g_i.:§rf the predeceased 50:"1" _éx' :vfV s;}é§i"1"VpmcViéa;;§'ae¢d' daughter, as the ease " (C) prépéity to which a female Hindu " hecon"1"e§ ..§{iiitlad :by virtue of the provisions of i_+:lm"1"s;§&(3)s"1""1"aVii'Eé heid by her with the incidents of ~ ownership and shall be regarded, "1" "'n6ia:fiﬁ2:§§£iﬁ6ing anything contained in this Act or &ii§v'_ law fer the time being in force, as " .. jmaperiy capable of being disposed of by her by Wiil or other testamentary dﬁzposiiion;

id) nothing in chase (it) shall apply :0 a daughter married prior to or to a partiiitim which had been effected befme the caanmmzcﬁrnent of Hindi: Stsccessim (Kamataka Amendment) Act, "1"999". § It is smighi in be pointed uni [here was said provision for an unmanicd daughicr il}i_'{.[l"1"_.f.'-§s'_i!iL?i.!i iirqér ptiur 7. disposition or aiicnaiion of 'tighti"isL taken away under the proviso to 6(i'}( of 2005 and therefore it is iiézcifucd oughi in be held {:3 subsisi. N This cor;'lc§ii'§;7r_ai"1" .cii"1"i"1"z;%§_3i" ..s:is'I}"1"in6=d for the following "1"'$3S0ﬂSI The Ac! came into effect from Amendment Act came iniu effect from" lailcr prevails sever the fiinner in terms (if _ ih¢ Constitution uf India which cnunuiaics the ncjriiiéiiruii: the event of 2;: cunﬂist bciwecn 2: Union and a ISlalc iii the cnncuireni ﬁzcld the Iizrmcr prevails over {he '~.Ia"1"ici*¥_ino mailer that this Uiiion Law is Later in lime --- the Union will prevail and Lht: Siam Law shxﬂ, to the extent of such be void, This is subject "1"0 {ha exception tzngraficd under clause (2) ufArtic}c 254 of the Consiiiaiiun of India. t % "2(};"1"'L;.2Ei3t€}~"§-

Further, thzs petitioner has ﬁlcztd the suit for p:»~:fti'tit§':3Vj:i'z3_' the yczar 2%? when the 2005 Act had cums into :2}: iungcr drama.' sustenance from the Kzmanétake ﬁimcﬁﬂiﬂﬁfﬁivﬁdi. The 7. L position would not be any diffcrentt:.,vc§i:._ in a i3j:;:"1"@i'ing Vstz«.."1"'i't'vt{""1"Vh:-4."1" prior [u the coming into form: u'{"'t't§;Té:»5?.0O5 }E.L:t"3ﬁé3 thc basis of the: Karnataka ..Act';t :«

7. The tftitai them: is no basis, under 6( 3 the 280$ Act, to restrict this right 0i'A2:VVdaugh"1"::t"«'{}fV:i Vt::.:;§§:!.:ai'<:en<:r from cs-aiiing in quctstiun zmy disptgsivtigvn v-aiisnéiiizin the co-parctsnary prupcrty prior to t' Frgvgii cxaminatiun of ihc: Statement of Ohjccts and "~..Rca5oii:-;V__t}i3 the Amendment Act and even fmm the contents vi' the Report of the Law Commissiutm of India and Aranexures % ....i.§§ercto the raiiunai basis urn which the said rcstritztiun is piaced 3'2: V nut appamnt. Ania:-xurc~II to the Report whiazh £3 Siyihd as Q A recent Suprerm': Court decision in ;';:"'§aa.é;j£¢'s Sczrrsxradi v. Urzitm of :'r2cl:'a lends st"1"pp_«5i"1"t..;tz:~ftjheL'4 % View that :"1" distirtctiotr betwaeiya. 'ma'tTiDe_d"&"1"'t:fi' air umxtarried daughter wit} be ;'ut}t".'-t'}f"1"s'£§Vil"1"ﬁC?ii&§ 7' Supre:-."1"zze Court heid that .t_}_"1"e ciﬁ';:r;i2ii' in fe:tié§*i::g_tl"1"e choice of 2"1" retirirtg e"1""1"x"1")§'t:e§{:é'e. to tl£f,>I}V'i§..t_}_'c'"1"'i'i'-'.?t Itizigried datighter is "$'V"1"}0H3" 't?,t_lt':':'a5i¢.;ttia*"1"3hL*'*" and gender biasm-.d" ﬁzééjiiaisihe dowtt tindcz-2* Article "1"4 of Réferfiiig to the c}is.'ti::a:ti'«;>f;."1" VE"i:~."1"s"1"t2r'"1" by tfié éir{;}it§é;x*w iteﬁveetl a mariéed ar:d"u':%mﬁ:':'iégi ﬁattgizter, P_tif"1"e:h"1"."1"i; 3, observed: V %%%% ;»é:§:§_gjbi"1".i:t3,r_:L')f"a« --"1"'{'gf£tfl'ii3(i daughter gym am pIa,éé£i'v-at. .a,_ ';§?.tTth-.:§I"1"t"1"II£l"1"a"1"'!'it3(§ dauglm-"1"* (for site :::us"1"t.}:a~;;:je in the State} so as to ciaim tE'Vi.€':"'¥.}éeIr,l'et'!§ﬁou.r'-'lI;-:"V T'}"1"é";:are;:"1""1""1"b¥<:~ ten the Amending Acts indicates S243' "t::§3ject2"ve: the 2'cn"1"ovaI <3"1"' discrixnistatiorz * 'ilattgliters i"1""1"}"1"e:re.nt $3 the tttitaksiiara co- .paV?{;;wi$"1":'y and the e"1"'adis:ati<:>:; of the baneﬁzl sygtezxt .g:=f &owry by positive zxxeasures thus atnehoratizrg ""t¥2e cmlditémz cvfworztexx in the: hunzan sgaciety'. This £3 0:3"1"}? at subsiciiafyf 0.2" c(>¥Iate2'ai objective and it came! be said that the ciassiﬁcation draw}: by the Amextding Acts bears 3. Ilaiiektlal reiatioxtship to the abjective sought £0 be achieved.

said {:2 be alive and hence her right in succcssiunags a:Cn-"1"-p3.£caén¢f"'_.' has not opened. Tim heading 9:' s¢g:%iunA5 'i.i_sci"Fx§.}ot:h{ iiig"1"i;§alc'2 that ii 2:-onucrns ih-:2 interest £3. gwpﬁfcrggiaqr '"'dcw"1"\rt:" on tha daughter. '?}v;}'.c;v:§:_5<:;§*._é-V::" ﬁvm a pagan dying £0 3 The scape and ' [hat on and from the the daughter of a co-

parccncr in by birth become a co» parc:cnc?"__Aa:g._ same: rdghis and Iiabiﬁifcs as a sun, can o:ﬁ';:..'4b£:-.cui§as_iri.;;:£iu[§ér deciding {he sharcﬁxat dcsvulvcs un _ her v.a§"1"_<:I2 Lh-:.*»r righi'"1"u,sa..2."1":ccssiun up-ens, having regard to {he scape < an§§'am§;>E§._<§:£' iisczﬂ'.

.' A cxccpiiun that may be construed its avoiding {he 'Saliva ﬁjufa being rendered nugaiory is in ex circulnsiancc where £i"1"fl{3<'A.'A.{'I'£.)!'l'I {hes cumzmznccrncni mf Act 39 0"1"32995, at 3 pdriiiiun "1":5"1" co- arvencrs the dam rhicfs ti vhi it; a share: b "1" way of 32 I3 E: E2 3 .

=$'m.:cessiun, as a cu-parucncr as rtsuogniscd undar Scctiun 6("1") uf ihc: Act, being kept in vicvug she might to be given ha: sham. Z Yci anuihcr exccpﬁun wmzid be, as in {he prcscniﬁasc on hand, when the share uf ihc daughter was in {hat was alicnaicd prior in coming into force VqI :.'_3:u:l and before 20."1"2.2004. There is I}(:.)J ihg: ? Ewing enabled to question "1"}"1";:T'a4Iicna«Ei9_f£s and,' {if righi to a share uf the procced:§;"'cf'§?wnVV if {fie .f;}ig§"1"is"p"1"' bona-Ede ihird-party purchasesrs cji'-.i_I..ir: to be dizsiurbcd The aziiiwgz v;x§;-.;:p§ig5x"1"2s z:"1"_"c~in nu manner in be laictzn as {he only cirL?t;"1";"1";¥.:i,:.::n£;L::_~:Vi}"1".z;'x--';' §.Sé£2_;"1"'"1"'(I"'c:nai3§e a daughhzr {Q seek her share uf " pféjpcriy (men during the iii?--lime 0? her pm-asibirs to muiiipiy insmnccs.

avuwed object uf the law makers in having cnacicd V' VAcTi 2005 is negated by the srszious lacunae and ambiguity in ' {ha fcgislaiiun as observed by several learned azsihu-rs and juzisis. A few of {busts ubscrvaliuns are: cuxnpiicd in an a:"i.ji:'§c by Parmindcr Kaur Kahion.

Sea: - "The Hinxiu Succession A0: and status of ~!:%:e_: "fFe--"1""raa::ie:s «~ _-an Overview": Nyayadeep, --.

The 0ﬁiciaIJcn.tma."1"o.fNALSA Volume Isszj2ej.nc.,_4 P, _9;9_ f In the result, lht: wrii pciii5§§i"1"..%is aﬂuweif, Scciiun 6("1"}(c) uf the SAV:.£'¢':'<':-t'3$::.~'.;'i¢§VI

"1"

LAAmcriiimcrii Aci (Act

39./2005) insufar as ii dispuséiinns U"1"' alienati<;ii§ ;5ri:xfiV5to is violative of Article L4 and I6 ofindia and bears nu raiiunai nexus; {Q the ob_f;::c:£ of [fie z§g"1"§"1"t:£:<i3*fz'cniAcl. Sd/-r Judge *.nv_

Miss R. Kantha v. Union Of India Repre...