Prakash & Ors. v. Phulavati & Ors.
Background
A daughter sued her relatives for partition of joint family property after her father died in February 1988, claiming a share as a coparcener. The trial court gave her only a partial share on the basis of a notional partition at her father's death. The High Court held that the 2005 amendment, which gives daughters the same rights as sons in joint family property, applied even though her father had died before it came into force, and gave her an equal share. Several other cases raising the same question were connected to this appeal.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the 2005 amendment is prospective and does not apply to succession that opened before 9 September 2005. The amended Section 6 gives daughters coparcenary rights only "on and from" the Act's commencement, and only if the coparcener died after the amendment, so no retrospective effect could be read in. A notional partition at the father's death had already fixed the heirs' shares and created vested rights that the later law could not take away. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the case for a fresh decision on the entitlement. It also held that the rights apply to living daughters of living coparceners as on 9 September 2005, while partitions effected before 20 December 2004 remain unaffected. The Court separately directed that a public interest petition be registered on discrimination against Muslim women, with notice to the Attorney General and NALSA.
Lesson Learnt
A new law that gives property rights to daughters generally applies only from its start date, so a daughter's claim depends on whether her father was still alive when the amendment took effect. Property rights that were already settled before the change in law are generally not reopened.