RAKESH SHARMA & Ors.
Justice Arun Mishra, Abdul Nazeer & M.R Shah
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/8/2020
So, in this case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma 121 page judgment that was delivered on 11 August 2020 there was a background that has been asserted with the case i.e. before 1956 there were no codified law regarding the customary laws as there were different laws in every region but after (1956-2005) a proper law has been there regarding the Succession under Hindu families i.e. Ancestral Property to be desolved by survivor-ship rule only and males were considered to be the coparceners up to 3 Generations,so the rule lasted till 2005. But after the amendment came in 2005 of Hindu Succession Act things got changed as there has been amendment under section 6 of the Act and the rule of Survivor-ship has been removed with Testamentary and Interstate Succession. However between this verdict by the Hon’ble Supreme Court there were several other judgments i.e. Prakash v. Phulwati (2016) as in this case it was held by the court that it is necessary for the father to be alive at the date of 9 September 2005 as when the act got amended but it was overruled in case of Danamma v. Amar (2018) as it was said that the father need not to be alive but this was creating the confusion. So, finally in recent judgment court cleared the confusion.
Question of Law ?
1. Whether it is necessary for the father to be alive on 9th September 2005 ?
2. As there has been conflict in the previous judgment regarding Daughter as Coparcener, so, will daughter will be considered Coparcener or not ?
Held:So, in this case of 3 Judge Bench it was held by the court that it is not important as father need not to be alive on the date of enforcement of 2005 amendment and they further disagreed with the judgment of Prakash v. Phulwati.
The Apex Court has expressly held that any claim for partition in which the final decree is yet to be drawn, will now be determined in accordance with the Vineeta Sharma verdict. It does not specifically deal with those final decree proceedings that have already been concluded based on the earlier law laid down in the Prakash v. Phulwati judgement. At the same time, the court has directed that any pending suit or appeal involving the controversy around the application of Section 6 of the amendment Act must be disposed off not later than six months in accordance with the Vineeta Sharma verdict. Therefore, there remains the larger question of what happens to those appeals that are pending and have arisen out of a final decree in which the mandate under Section 6 of the Amended Act has not been followed.
So, the basic reason why this judgment have been considered so important
because it removed the concept of gender inequality. While the Vineeta Sharma verdict
is indeed laudable for achieving the noble and necessary objective of gender
equality and gender justice, the fact that the controversy took close to 15
years to be finally settled reflects the long journey towards justice. While
the end effect of this latest verdict is no doubt an excellent development and
progress in the right direction, it also highlights the debilitating impact on
the financial security of women by such belated outcomes and on the real estate
economy, if real estate transactions are frequently subject to such
fluctuations in law. One hopes that in the days to come, the Indian judiciary
not only continues to incline in favour of progressive values in keeping with
its rich traditions, it does so with speed and at the same time provides
predictability and clarity for investments in all areas including real estate.
But the larger question is that whether this this would be able to work on
ground level or not because in our society there has been still places where
daughter do not ask for there rights which she needs to ask as it will not be
easy for them to ask for there share and not all the daughters can come to get
their shares. So, the problem lies at the ground level but it is good that
judiciary has been removing the gender stereotypes from the society and in the
future let’s hope that judiciary plays a good role in removing all the gender
stereotypes from our society and moreover that it is our duty to provide rights
of every woman when required.