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£)V1BY11AP.fEVDBY
‘WRIT P1′;’rm01§ N;;;1c§fi;’.é%{>a7 (ex/1;REs)
BETWEEN:
D,’o.Sri.Dodd::.IIi:§’=’£1h A L
Aged mat 3fir. 3′,’eaf§;
Residing; aa%I;¢ban;:m1:»a,jT-{f %
Razfiagofidanahalfi, A: . ‘
Bangalore Squib ” V.
BangaIc;re–56i3′
Raprziscnicd by G.’P,A. .
V' hoicief' Sri;.G€rvjnd :S;Bha1, Adm) '4 vflndia, . Represented by its, Cabinci Secretary, V' Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Deihid 10 001. ..PETITIONER 2. State of Kumalaka, Represented by its Principal Secretary, D6?-'fitment of Law, . 3 A Vidhanzs Soudha, Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalure-569 G91. (By.SIi.Aravind Kumar ,
Smt.A.R.Sharadamba, Additional? &ivGc5veemn’:ent Advocate for
Refifimdenl No.2)’ .’ V’ ‘ _
This Vv’r*§i Péfiiiigzn “is {£1-3;: Uf:dei’;A1’§§’ele 226 and 227 of the
Constitution; {if “Ind§&”1pra3<iV:ag"to decIart'– the proviso to Section 6
(1) (C)£u Hindi}. -f§:uecessi.OfivVL_'A,t:1iendi3tenl act (act 39105) 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 a31ira."viree.Ih.-fa article 14 and 16 of Constitution
oflndia &'e1c.; ' '
This been heard and reserved an 9-6.2009
.__and':ei:3I:;i13g..%_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).
3
% ..e_1EE§.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.3104.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?’1r:}{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;na1 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
6
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*;1I’–oooasio;.-ts “to cIiat53::AVih;f.
parties to do so.
3. The Counsel hcaxd oi tungfl1_
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
5
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”p1%npert§zi’.utie§ef’ Fe
section 6-A of the Hindu Suueessififly
Act, 1955 (As.-123 (£1994). said W
into eITect fmm 30.7.1994? 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 .’}\.c1 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””Sla1e amendment Act, resuliing in rights having accrued
.’ ti,» Ve’dz:1ugh1er 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»
21 Division Bench decision in 4\/’anjc2m.*:zc:..;md V3. of L.
Kamaiaica and others; 1999 (2) \Vii6I§iE”¥, pf ‘
Sccliun 6-A of the Hindu
A61, 1990, was called ,iii~.g,}”ut:S’¥;§’fLii’1:’.I;:S:’ ufl:1’£:(§f1s'[i;u1iuna} and
violativt: of Article 14 The said clause
having made a_, ‘ daughters namely,
a’i1Vrv1’n: «fidjiintéizncezncni uf the Amendment
A31, in claim a share: in pmpcrty, as
was avaiiabffi daughlcr or a daughitsr married after
=.,{}1c”-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.
6
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 $hn¥$;§ 1956. This
Act bruught about in the 1:r2:&t.§’Vt’t.i’!f_:a:;i($ce;:sion and gave rights
which were hitherto iiI3knQW:I.I’,=.V2.Ht’V.1;’t7i;;ttittI1′ ‘twumanfis property.
However, it diz1_”1iti’§;[.§”:i:[:e::i*?;rc€ rights of those who
are members: Of2!{}”;iffi[E1k.§ihiiIt’téi»Vt.{Z£»’-:3tif£J{§§}%£1′}’ except to provide rules
for dcveivutiori efttize-j Gf a deceased in certain cases. The
Act laid douimée uniti;n:i._ai1d -eumprehensive system of inheritance
and xinteV1’¥ali:«:_,___.ta3 persons governed by Mitakshzim and
as also to those in certain parts of southern
Indiatvéhe.Ay=§eteA.e}2reviuusIy guvernmi by the Mummakkaiiayam,
and Nambudri Systems. The Act applies to any
‘jwhu is a Hindu by rcfigiun in any uf its fauna or
-.._fl;}cyelopmen1s including 3 Vimshaiva, a Lingayat or a fuflvwer of
If}
inicstaic, the Act lays dawn a set uf gcmzrai rulcsfiii In
I3.
Before the present mncndmciii..AS’euiiunT,’fé”. {fir},
devolution of interest in pmpcri$i’L’L-2933 :4s1bV!”iox$fS::~V’:
“6. Devolution of – When 3 male
Himiu dies after th¢A€Q§11n1ex:’¢éii3c-‘bf at the time of his
death an iatergsét i%rop_efl 1I”lVi.”L’c:’i:.I”lHf:é3l’6Sf in the propeify shall
devolve by mflmbéffi of the and not in
astcordange with « . % ‘ < "
Provieiédu had lefi him surviving a female relative
_ ‘in”Class f(§f”3i}@__g’$G§16dlEi6 or 3 mafia relative specifiesd in ihaf class
vsrAhG«9i§:in1;§’ ‘ihrc:;;gi;.s1ich femaie relative, the interest of the éeazeaseé in the
éhali devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as
V V’ _ the cage niayh iinfier 11135 Act and not by survivorship.
” ; ‘ExpIanation in Fm the purposes of $112.’: Seating the interest egrf a
Rfitaksmta czswparcener shafl be deenxed to be the share in the pmperty
“‘«:Vufi.2hfw01:ld have been aliotted to him if a partition of fin: property had iaicen
%
H
griace inmiediataiy before his cfeafla, irrespective of wizefhegi W23: IE5′ ._V
claim panitien I)!’ not. ».
Exp-ianatian 2. M Nothing contaixaed ift«-thé’provis9v§:rA
be constmed as enabling a person who”h.a}é”separat¢d. hifi1.s:§}f ffagnz the before
the death 01′ 21 deceased or any his Eaéiisfii ;::3Ef\i”1i1_ A-on mtefixsj} a share in the
interest refszrred tr) ‘ther6i:1.”
Befun: Q? cudifying the rules of
samcession, ” family under Mitakshara
School law. ,!Vhz_; ¥.’:’Ml> i&€a§i'{:r¢}ifia1ily juint nut only in csiaic but
aprépcrly, in cuniradisiinclion with the
in religiuus matturs Es £&*t.:’Ii=. _
_ absulgzjé ‘V or scpé{:r2zi¢__ grgtgmriy of any individual co-pare-snag
N dt,:vt>l_,v_c>:;§_Vi1p1;n’ S’uxjxiving co-parwmsrs in the famfiy, according In
{IiE:.of(§£é_v:;_In§it}n by survivurship.
” * 6 dealing with {he dc-vuiuiion of the interest of a
‘Hindu in prupcriy and while recognising the ruk: uf
‘«..(.:ie’£ri}It:liun by sunriwrship among the members of the co-
pamcnaxy, made an exccpiiun to the rule: in the proviso. According
3
12
to the pmvisu, if the deceased had left him surviving at fcmate
rciativc: specified in Class I of st:-htzdtztc 1, ur a male rsiative
specified in that Class who claimed through such i?:1nair:.___r¢:!aiivc,
the interest of the deccascct in the MitaI<:shar2t.._"e§t§§p;;rs.$é:z;ar}*
property dcvutvcd by testamentary or intestate
the Act and not by survivurship- 13xv'i£:tt§§f3'ar:;f:i3g:r~:VVttIt:c'lt:r
Scutiun 30 to make 21 ttsstamtmtary (tfi-,'${'.'§'*'(.I'!'-:ilii.I*I"kZv,.{V§*'.t: ufjgctivitted
intcmcstin the Joint family pmpc1'"Vt}A_V't' _ V '
Thu rule: of survi\:{_3}3i:i;:fi_ "V«_i:3t:L§'t;:pcratiun only —
where: {he did .3;-.-axrc' him surviving a female rctativt:
spccifiedtiizg Class}. zjrta ,Itiatéfclativc specified in that Class who
claims' titmugh "su_g;:hV fcntaaic rciativc, and (ii) when tht: dcccastrd
hact.,nut _;i1:¢d3V£:'~-tgstamcntary disposition of his undivided share in
The Schcduic tn the Act mad with
Seutttin. gprtrtiidcd thc Fe-Iluwing twcivc rctatitma: as Class I heirs.-
' ft_'3«3Vr1V;t"daughter; widow; mother; sun of a pm-deceased son;
dztnghtcr at a prc~dcc-cased sun; son at prc-dmscascd daughter;
3
33
daughfcr :31″ a pm-deceased daughter, widow
son; sex: of prc–dc¢;::ascd sun uf as preldéccasad ‘:i’z::;;vg;;’i:”1cr ‘.¢}$’ “‘
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)-pa1’ccncr for the
application qf Vsurvivorship. The head
unit: ufA:’:i*%§aa1 interest in ctrparccnary
pr0pcr£y “x_A T fizain pmvisien in ihc «::ITcut that
“his in1cz*r:slEi:;«.V[%I1t: 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:.1AV”t:x*:{:z::T._£”L;. the deceased e;upan;c:m:r’s interest alunc’ [his
t\Fi{.3%I”[:{‘:1.Li{::I1L)£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.1cd.Ihat
was no disrupfion of the entire: ¢:u-paz*c::nary. Ii fufiowcd that
g
15
canrzot go back or: that a.s’S1£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{£1i?’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?!?;>ec1?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§E1?j££3’§”‘»4.{ft.§’£2″ ‘aK5′};P{.”I’..'”V.t’..’ allattea’ to :3 in an actzzai
pimfiiiart V’e;§a}mI¢;V kxérélfsgry ofthis pz)s’irir: 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, 11!}? 1985
Sfiprenm Cmzri 716, the Supreme Court carefully considered the
‘- dtzcisiun in Gurztpuzfs case and pointed Gui lhai Gumpaa”.s’ 6336
3
36
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~§a1– gwgérly
under Section 6 of (ht: Act filus a Ra”
willingness lo gt: out of the Ii::;zVa’vi’§.§{Vsh;{1v’¢Q)u3d_
the interest she has inhefifed have been
nulionally ailotiud in I to Section 6 of
the Act. But il.vt;3j 331_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
3
37
<,)fPar}ian1t: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«iL1’fA1 i
2005.
Section 6, as subsli1ulcd””éS}”‘–Act W¢:filrdclt’:VcVl
below for ready rcfcrcnnfi ‘_ V V V
“6. Devolution _i5r2t¢1*é;s%t i}1 property
(1) 93141116. fi””C» t}} tlwi.«iccxxiitiéfizscfeizzérlt of the Hindu
$2}CI}5§”4’fii’§$it?21!4(;3!.;i1&E3#ii”i3¥1€3lt§}AC1, 2005, in a Joint Hindu
” fai21iiy’gs}#*¢ii1z%§i”t1ié Mitaksh-a.1-a law, the daughter
-afa ct)-yarcetiair £31311},-
V «$21) by bixflat co-pameneg’ in 1181′ own right in the
j A ~._,4:_’sé,tx1é§:’:r:a12;1e2*as the 313:1;
{§3&V§§&vé’§$}1§§. same rights in the co-parcetxary propesty as
‘s§~3aAe§””vAsIe3uld have bad if she had been 21 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,:»–parceI1s3T:
Provided that nothing contained iI't_ :flli§;. "
Section shall afiéct or iiivalidgte a11y'.'cii§§k"3-é'i:ti.dé1w
alieqiation inciuding any ;:;?n'titi»c,)11A jjo2W_tést;1113e:x!éi:3r f
disposition of pmpez'ty_which takezr 'be*fc§1'e A ' " V '
the 20"' day ofI)ecernV!$e1j,:"'.?t)4.
(2) Any "'g:2je;per£}}mtc}é Qa fe:1fié.Ie'AVHir1du
be,-comes erltitlecié' (1) 3112312 be
held bya.I:er v}»*i'fi:- 'iz1;f:id1e$:.fis " ':':o-parcenary
oxvxxefsiiig .3I1a§!_l " notwithstanding
any other law for
.. the-_ utita;_i'§é,~ asV;.:4'<;pet1y capable of being
cf 'by tesfatllexltary disposition.
(3V) :1 Hindu dies aflef the
” u$3ssi01:, as the case znay be, under this Act and
” by sa2~’viv0rs}1ip, 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
$9
(1)) the share of a pie-deceased sun or 3. A ‘
daughter, as they would have got had f_§l¢3′–
at the time of partition, 3 .. l _
surviving child of such pre-£i’ep;%eéa=sezd soil’ 9!’ “of .s;u;ll’–~ l
p,,¢.de=s;*eased daugl1te1′;lafid..V 1
(:3) the sahare of the :;?l1’il.(l:l_ pre»
son 01′: of a ~daugl1tef, such
child would llavcl g§,r3_t’l1é:é alive at the
time x)f_tl;z}_.par1iii{§ii,’ the child of
such Q? son or a
asjfizelligaée may be-.
1 Exglléiiatieyfil.F:*:§<,:il1e:_.purposes of this sub-Swtiml,
,£l1é«.i:1{ea–'e§f;t' _l9Iltaks}2a1'a shall be deetxled to
'$l}ll1't} in l:llé7p1'opet1:y that would have been
l 'V lallotteil a panition ofthe moperty had taken
,, yiyiaée.fzinrlediately befasre his deatll. irrespective ref
l . :"'vsyl:ai;l1e_:1fi;;-3 was entitled to; claim partitiml or not
(4) After the atozmzlegrcexrxerit of the Hindzu
" _ Successiexr (Atnen¢ne12t) Act, 2(}i)5, no Couxt shall
1*e~ct3gt2ise any right to p:'«.)ceed against a son,
granclson or great-graz1dse.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 5:011,
5
20
grandson or great-g:’andson to disc§1a:’gé’._’£121}{*T2;iii:}1 ‘ —
debt; _
Provided that in fig of’-v_a:iy aee;:% %
contracted before t}1e’ gL’:i:;x11endé;21e11t pf Hi:-“xiii:
Succession (A1nendn1eiit}. AcL .2x’}.95V, nxétilirxg
contained in tiaié ;~;.z1A_£3>-S_+;*;aV;*t2’«_3’V:A1″-3:2;-.é.~.i:IL’afl’es:t–
(3) the right any against
the sQ:1;ggf:ittds0x10:’ gféai->g>,g;a1ikimn;a;as the case may
” H H ” j»(‘1w_) a.:iy– ah;é£1;iti4″:n -made in respect of or in
“”._saiti§;fac:t_i6;~§’.’oS§Vany’s:1:§.f-1debt, and any such right or
aIi:3patiQti”‘3§:é’t§§_ “E2e:}enfor”ceabie under the mic’: of
‘ * pious 0bIig21tim:’1?t1fl1e 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.
‘ .. iI31:§r;;fa;:ati<}11-F01' the },)li1'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.
6
21
(5) Nothing arontained in this section ‘
pamtion, which has been effegg-gee: befc:e”ih.éf££}”1’ day_ V_: ”
of December, 2004.
Explanation-Fm’ t1xeV»T.g§i::pose5″‘ gf V
“partition” means any paéffitifigx-zgxadé of
a deed of pfigiifjmi jégjef-,:i’s1;: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 14 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
@
22
the Iife–1imc: of hcr fathttr, nutxvi1hsia1;¢§§n§§_
Sm.’-ccssiun (Amtndmcnl) As:-1; 3995 H ” ” ‘Q ‘< é
It was canvassed that a.=z'igI_11 of
pciiliuncr under the Hindu Suc.z4,i:§3a3.v_»(I~i’ai*nal§_§Viv.ca fianmdmenl}
Act, 1994 (23 of 1994) Miaeu’m;%%rnm:j%3{3;7.1994 –» 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 21 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;
(13) at a partition in such a Jaint Himiil
Faniily the co-pamenmy gtoroperty shali be so
@
23
divided as to allot to a daughter the same share §§”is< –. :_.
aflottabie to 3 sen;
Prmideii that me share whi1:J.1_ a _
son at a predeceased daughtar vizguld gist 1at if1a ‘ ” V: ._
panititm if he or she hxlbwix aéiiveléf the §5f’ 1 ‘
the partition, shall be the,-A ‘é11rtviv5.:;1g
of such predeceased son sugsh
daughter: __ ._ _ _
Proviziezd si1′;:;ii”~%;V”_2zil’ii:itfgzb1e to
the precieceafmi of a
been alive
at me’ i§;;i1eT’£:f’3ti}e: ‘p.aj;}’.iftii;:1,v”:i:;héi1V1A as aiiotred to the
_ c1a.E1g_i.:§rf the predeceased
50:1 _éx’ :vfV s;}é§i1VpmcViéa;;§’ae¢d’ daughter, as the ease
” (C) prépéity to which a female Hindu
” hecon1e§ ..§{iiitlad :by virtue of the provisions of
i_+:lm1s;§&(3)s11aVii’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, 1999″.
§
24
It is smighi in be pointed uni [here was
said provision for an unmanicd daughicr il}i_'{.[l1_.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_ai1 .cii1i1z;%§_3i” ..s:is’I}1in6=d for the following
1’$3S0flSI
The Ac! came into effect from
Amendment Act came iniu effect
from” lailcr prevails sever the fiinner in terms (if
_ ih¢ Constitution uf India which cnunuiaics the
ncjriiiéiiruii: the event of 2;: cunflist bciwecn 2: Union and a
ISlalc iii the cnncuireni fizcld the Iizrmcr prevails over {he
‘~.Ia1ici*¥_ino mailer that this Uiiion Law is Later in lime — the Union
will prevail and Lht: Siam Law shxfl, to the extent of such
be void, This is subject 10 {ha exception tzngraficd
under clause (2) ufArtic}c 254 of the Consiiiaiiun of India.
3
t % “2(};1’L;.2Ei3t€}~”§-
Further, thzs petitioner has filcztd the suit for p:»~:fti’tit§’:3Vj:i’z3_’ the
yczar 2%? when the 2005 Act had cums into :2}:
iungcr drama.’ sustenance from the Kzmanétake fiimcfifliflfiffiivfidi. The 7. L
position would not be any diffcrentt:.,vc§i:._ in a i3j:;:1@i’ing Vstz«..1’i’t’vt{“1Vh:-4.1
prior [u the coming into form: u'{“‘t’t§;Té:»5?.0O5 }E.L:t”3fié3 thc basis of
the: Karnataka ..Act’;t :«
7. The tftitai them: is no basis,
under 6( 3 the 280$ Act, to restrict this
right 0i’A2:VVdaugh1::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
23
A recent Suprerm’: Court decision in ;’;:”‘§aa.é;j£¢’s
Sczrrsxradi v. Urzitm of :’r2cl:’a lends st1pp_«5i1t..;tz:~ftjheL’4 %
View that :1 distirtctiotr betwaeiya. ‘ma’tTiDe_d”&1’t:fi’ air
umxtarried daughter wit} be ;’ut}t”.’-t’}f1s’£§Vil1fiC?ii&§ 7′
Supre:-.1zze Court heid that .t_}_1e cifi’;:r;i2ii’ in fe:tié§*i::g_tl1e
choice of 21 retirirtg e11x1)§’t:e§{:é’e. to tl£f,>I}V’i§..t_}_’c’1’i’i’-‘.?t Itizigried
datighter is “$’V1}0H3″ ‘t?,t_lt’:’:’a5i¢.;ttia*13hL*’*” and
gender biasm-.d” fizééjiiaisihe dowtt tindcz-2*
Article 14 of Réferfiiig to the
c}is.’ti::a:ti’«;>f;.1 VE”i:~.1s1t2r’1 by tfié éir{;}it§é;x*w itefiveetl a mariéed
ar:d”u’:%mfi:’:’iégi fiattgizter, P_tif1e:h1.1i; 3, observed:
V %%%% ;»é:§:§_gjbi1.i:t3,r_:L’)f”a« –1′{‘gf£tfl’ii3(i daughter gym am
pIa,éé£i’v-at. .a,_ ‘;§?.tTth-.:§I1t1II£l1a1′!’it3(§ dauglm-1* (for site
:::us1t.}:a~;;:je in the State} so as to ciaim
tE’Vi.€’:”‘¥.}éeIr,l’et’!§fiou.r’-‘lI;-:”V
T’}1é”;:are;:111b¥<:~ ten the Amending Acts indicates
S243' "t::§3ject2"ve: the 2'cn1ovaI <31' discrixnistatiorz
* 'ilattgliters i11}1e:re.nt $3 the tttitaksiiara co-
.paV?{;;wi$1:'y and the e1'adis:ati:; of the banefizl sygtezxt
.g:=f &owry by positive zxxeasures thus atnehoratizrg
“”t¥2e cmlditémz cvfworztexx in the: hunzan sgaciety’. This
£3 0:31}? at subsiciiafyf 0.2” c(>¥Iate2’ai objective and it
came! be said that the ciassification draw}: by the
Amextding Acts bears 3. Ilaiiektlal reiatioxtship to the
abjective sought £0 be achieved.
7:
32
said {:2 be alive and hence her right in succcssiunags a:Cn-1-p3.£caén¢f”‘_.’
has not opened. Tim heading 9:’ s¢g:%iunA5 ‘i.i_sci”Fx§.}ot:h{ iiig1i;§alc’2
that ii 2:-onucrns ih-:2 interest £3. gwpfifcrggiaqr
‘”‘dcw1\rt:” on tha daughter. ‘?}v;}’.c;v:§:_5<:;§*._é-V::" fivm a
pagan dying £0 3
The scape and ' [hat on and
from the the daughter of a co-
parccncr in by birth become a co»
parc:cnc?”__Aa:g._ same: rdghis and Iiabifiifcs as a
sun, can o:fi’;:..’4b£:-.cui§as_iri.;;:£iu[§ér deciding {he sharcfixat dcsvulvcs un
_ her v.a§1_<:I2 Lh-:.*»r righi'1u,sa..2.1:ccssiun up-ens, having regard to {he scape
E§._<§:£' iisczfl'.
.’ A cxccpiiun that may be construed its avoiding {he
‘Saliva fijufa being rendered nugaiory is in ex circulnsiancc where
£i1fl{3<'A.'A.{'I'£.)!'l'I {hes cumzmznccrncni mf Act 39 0132995, at 3 pdriiiiun
1:51 co- arvencrs the dam rhicfs ti vhi it; a share: b 1 way of
32 I3 E: E2 3 .
=$’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
33
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 20.12.2004. 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§1is”p1′ bona-Ede
ihird-party purchasesrs cji’-.i_I..ir: to be dizsiurbcd
The aziiiwgz v;x§;-.;:p§ig5x12s 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.
34
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.1o.fNALSA Volume Isszj2ej.nc.,_4 P, _9;9_ f
In the result, lht: wrii pciii5§§i1..%is afluweif,
Scciiun 6(1}(c) uf the SAV:.£’¢’:'<':-t'3$::.~'.;'i¢§VI"1"LAAmcriiimcrii Aci (Act
39./2005) insufar as ii dispuséiinns U1′
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§g1§1t:£:<i3*fz'cniAcl.
Sd/-r
Judge
*.nv_