AP HC orders equal share to three daughters on par with sons in family property

VIJAYAWADA: In a first of its kind order, the Andhra Pradesh High Court ordered equal rights to three daughters along with six sons in a family property dispute, delivering justice to them in their long legal battle for 37 years. This was on the lines of a judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in August, 2020.

Turaga Ramamurthy and Ramadevi hailing from Vadlamudi village of Guntur district had three daughters --Achutuni Seetha Ravamma, Siripurapu Swarajya Lakshmi and Chunduru Savitri Devi -- and six sons. They were having their joint family properties in parts of Vadlamudi and Guntur.

Ramamurthy died in July, 1961 without writing any Will. The three daughters had been waging a legal fight since 1986 for equal share in their father’s property and they moved AP high court in 2010 by filing a revision petition.

The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 raised several legal issues like whether this amendment act was retrospective or prospective. The act says that the daughter will be a coparcener by birth so that her claim for share goes back to the date of her birth and that, if it was prior to the amendment act, it is retrospective in nature.

Under section 6 (1) and sub-clauses a, b and c, of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, daughter is made as a coparcener by birth and hence, she has acquired equal right like a son regarding coparcener property.

As a coparcener, she has the right to seek a portion of the coparcenary property if property is available for partition.

The Supreme Court in the ‘Vineet Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma and others’ case held that even daughters have equal coparcenary rights in Hindu Undivided Family properties, irrespective of whether the father is alive or not on September 9, 2005, it being the date on which the amendment act came into effect.

It also made clear that the amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 granting equal right to the daughters to inherit the coparcenar property had retrospective effect and was not confined to the date on which the amendment was carried on September, 9, 2005.

AP High Court judge justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi delivered the judgment recently. Advocate Panini Somayaji argued on behalf of the petitioners.