Civil appeal No. diary No. 32601 of 2018


Ms.  Vineeta Sharma


Ms. Rakesh Sharma


24th August 2020


Supreme court of India


Justice Arun Mishra, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, justice M.R. Shah


Section 6 of Hindu succession act, 1956


Mr Dev dutt Sharma and his wife had 3 sons and a daughter named Rakesh Sharma, Satyendra Sharma and vineeta Sharma respectively. Mr Dev dutt Sharma passed away on 11 December 1999 and one of his three sons who were unmarried passed away on 1st July 2001. Later, Ms. Vineeta Sharma filed a case against rakesh Sharma, satyendra Sharma and her mother stating her right to receive 1/4th  share of her father’s property. The respondents claimed that she ceased to become the member of joint family once she got married.


Earlier according to Hindu succession act, 1956 only male members of the family were considered as co- parceners. But later according to the 2005 amendment act (section 6) daughters were also considered as co- parceners since birth and they are also equally liable. But the question raised was as the amendment got implemented on 9th September 2005, whether it is applicable to the cases if the father got expired before the date of implementation of amendment or it’s important for the father to be alive.


Before this case, several other cases were taken as an account for property succession of daughters. The landmark cases that finally worked as a precedent for the case was:

  1. Prakash v. phulwati [1]: in this case the two judge bench consisting justice Anil Dave and Justice A.K Goyal stated that it’s necessary for the father to be alive to pass his property rights to his daughter.
  2. Danamma v. Amar[2] : in the case the two judge bench consisting justice A.k sikri and justice Ashok Bhushan stated that even if the father passed away on 2001 ( years before the implementation of       the amendment) still the property can be passed on to his daughter.

Finally after all these judgements, the three judge bench stated that women acquire their right for ancestral property by birth even if the father is alive or not.


  • The verdict passed for the case had ended the legal ambiguity regarding the transfer of property rights for women by granting equal rights to acquire ancestral property.
  • The judgement had made clear that no one can discriminate citizens on the basis of gender and gender cannot be deemed as an account for granting property rights. It thus strengthens the ideology of article 14 ( right to equality) and article 15 ( right against discrimination)
  • It also empowers woman who are economically backward to cease the implication of male authority over them.


This case helped to implement the idea of women empowerment by providing equal property rights for both male and female.


  1. (2016) 2 SCC 36
  2. 2018(4) ADJ406

This case analysis is written by Nourien Nizar studying at Government Law College, Ernakulum

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *