The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 - Family Law I - Hindu Law

← All Family Law I - Hindu Law topics Past papers

On this page

1. Why the amendment was made
2. Salient features
3. The judicial story: Phulavati, Danamma, Vineeta Sharma
4. State amendments
5. Problem
How this is examined

Cases checked to exist. Read the judgment before quoting a holding.

Every case cited here has been checked to exist — the citation resolves and names the right parties. The propositions attributed to each case have not been verified line by line against the judgment. Case names link through to the full judgment: read it before quoting a holding in an examination answer, and never carry a proposition from notes into court on trust.

One date and one case. The Act came into force on 9 September 2005, and the cut-off for saving earlier partitions and alienations is 20 December 2004. The case is Vineeta Sharma (2020), which settled that a daughter is a coparcener by birth whether or not her father was alive in 2005. Most answers rest on these three points.

1. Why the amendment was made

The 1956 Act left the Mitakshara coparcenary untouched. Only males could be coparceners, so a son acquired an interest in ancestral property at birth while a daughter acquired nothing until her father died, and even then took only a share of his notional interest. Section 23 denied a female heir the right to seek partition of the family dwelling house, and section 4(2) kept agricultural tenancies out of the Act. The 174th Report of the Law Commission (2000) recommended reform, and several States had already acted. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Act 39 of 2005) followed.

2. Salient features

(a) Daughter as coparcener by birth: section 6(1)

In a joint Hindu family governed by Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener shall by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son, have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son, and be subject to the same liabilities. Any reference to a coparcener includes a daughter. Her marital status is irrelevant: a married daughter remains a coparcener in her father's family. She can demand partition, and, as the senior-most coparcener, she can be Karta.

The proviso saves any disposition or alienation, including a partition or testamentary disposition, made before 20 December 2004. The Explanation to section 6(5) defines partition for this purpose as one effected by a registered deed or by a decree of a court.

(b) Property held with incidents of coparcenary ownership: section 6(2)

Property to which a female becomes entitled under section 6(1) is held by her with the incidents of coparcenary ownership, and she may dispose of it by will notwithstanding anything in the Act.

(c) End of the survivorship rule: section 6(3)

Where a Hindu dies after the commencement of the 2005 Act, his interest in Mitakshara property devolves by testamentary or intestate succession, and not by survivorship. The coparcenary property is deemed to have been divided as if a partition had taken place; the daughter gets the same share as a son; the share of a pre-deceased son or daughter goes to his or her surviving children. The old proviso and the notional partition of Gurupad Magdum are no longer needed for deaths after 2005.

(d) Abolition of the pious obligation: section 6(4)

Under the old law a son was bound, as a pious duty, to pay his father's debts out of his share in joint family property, unless the debts were illegal or immoral (avyavaharika). After the 2005 Act no court shall recognise any right of a creditor to proceed against a son, grandson or great-grandson for a debt of his father, grandfather or great-grandfather solely on the ground of pious obligation. For debts contracted before the Act, the creditor's rights are preserved.

(e) Omission of sections 23 and 24

Section 23 had barred a female heir from claiming partition of a dwelling house wholly occupied by the family until the male heirs chose to divide it; a daughter could claim only a right of residence, and only if unmarried, deserted, separated or widowed. It is gone.
Section 24 had disqualified certain remarried widows (of a pre-deceased son, of a pre-deceased son's son, and of a brother). It is gone.

(f) Other changes

Section 4(2), which saved State laws on fragmentation, ceilings and devolution of tenancy rights in agricultural land, was omitted, so the Act's equal rules now reach agricultural land.
Section 30 was amended so that the Explanation covers the coparcenary interest of a male or female Hindu.
Four new heirs were added to Class I, all through pre-deceased daughters and sons.

3. The judicial story: Phulavati, Danamma, Vineeta Sharma

In Prakash v. Phulavati, 2015 INSC 793, (2016) 2 SCC 36, a two-Judge Bench held that the rights under the new section 6 apply only to living daughters of living coparceners as on 9 September 2005. In Danamma v. Amar, 2018 INSC 84, (2018) 3 SCC 343, another two-Judge Bench gave daughters a share even though the father had died in 2001. The conflict went to a larger Bench.

In Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, 2020 INSC 487, (2020) 9 SCC 1, a three-Judge Bench held:

The right is conferred by birth, so it is not necessary that the father coparcener was alive on 9 September 2005. The living-father condition in Phulavati was rejected, and Phulavati and Danamma were overruled to the extent they held otherwise.
The provision is retroactive, not retrospective: it operates from 2005, but on the basis of an antecedent event, the daughter's birth.
The statutory fiction of partition in the old proviso to section 6 does not bring about an actual partition or disruption of the coparcenary.
A plea of oral partition is not ordinarily accepted against a daughter; it may be accepted only exceptionally, where it is backed by public documents and acted upon.
Pending suits and appeals were to be decided giving effect to this view, preferably within six months.

Earlier, Ganduri Koteshwaramma v. Chakiri Yanadi, 2011 INSC 757, (2011) 9 SCC 788, had held that a preliminary decree for partition passed before 2005 does not shut out the daughter where the final decree had not been passed: a partition suit ends only with the final decree.

Trap. Do not write that the 2005 Act abolished the joint family or the coparcenary. It did not; it made daughters members of it. Only Kerala has abolished the joint family system by statute.

4. State amendments

Kerala. The Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 abolished the right by birth altogether; members hold as tenants-in-common. Section 6 therefore has little operation there.
Andhra Pradesh (1986), Tamil Nadu (1989), Karnataka and Maharashtra (1994). These States inserted provisions making an unmarried daughter a coparcener by birth, with a cut-off for daughters married before the State amendment. The 2005 Act went further by including married daughters, and its uniform rule now governs.

5. Problem

A father, a Mitakshara coparcener, died in 2003. There has been no registered or decreed partition. In 2026 his married daughter sues her brothers for an equal share in the ancestral property. They argue that the father was dead before the 2005 Act and that she was married.

Issue. Is she a coparcener entitled to an equal share?

Law. Section 6(1) as substituted in 2005; Vineeta Sharma.

Application. Her right flows from birth, not from the father being alive on 9 September 2005, so his death in 2003 is no bar. Marriage is irrelevant. No partition took place before 20 December 2004 by registered deed or decree, so the proviso does not save any earlier division. The father's own interest devolved in 2003 under the old section 6, but the rest of the coparcenary property is held by the coparceners, now including her.

Conclusion. She is a coparcener and entitled to the same share as each brother.

How this is examined

“Explain the salient features of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005” was set in January 2026 and recurs. List the features under headings as above, then a paragraph on Phulavati, Danamma and Vineeta Sharma, and close with the State amendments. As a short note: daughter as coparcener, or abolition of the pious obligation.