 Please subscribe to this YouTube channel mentor talk and do press bell button for notifications. Daughters must be given equal rights as sons. Daughter remains a loving daughter throughout life. The daughter shall remain a copartner throughout life irrespective of whether the father is alive or not. I am not saying this said justice misra of the Indian Supreme Court while pronouncing a historical judgment, a significant judgment yesterday. It is indeed a time to celebrate as the Indian legal outlook as to gender equality takes another big leap. As I mentioned yesterday in a historic judgment, the Indian Supreme Court granted unconditional equal rights to daughters in a copartnery property. Let me quote some of the complimentary portions of the judgment. Concerning gender discrimination to a daughter who always remains a loving daughter, the Supreme Court quoted from one of its earlier judgments, which reads as follows, it should be in front of your screen. A common saying is worth pressing into service, said the Supreme Court. A son is a son until he gets a wife. A daughter is a daughter throughout her life. This I am quoting from a Supreme Court judgment. The eligibility of a married daughter must be placed on a par with an unmarried daughter for she must have been once in that state to claim the benefit otherwise it would be unfair, gender-based and unreasonable, liable to be struck down. Yes, liable to be struck down, said Supreme Court under Article 14 of the Constitution. It suffers from twin vices of gender discrimination beg your pardon, intersay among women on account of marriage. Well, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the traditional Hindu law prevented the daughters from being copartners, which not only had an element of injustice, but was also contrary to the spirit of the Indian Constitution. The injustice of excluding daughters from the HUF, that is, Hindu undivided family property, was done away with earlier by 2005 amendment in the Hindu Succession Act 1956. But the anomalies and uncertainties continued, which led to daughters being deprived of their rights by the male siblings or relatives on the grounds of technicalities in the amendment. So, there was an amendment introduced in 2005, which included daughters into the copartner property rights. Before 2005 amendment, only sons, grandsons and great grandsons were the owners or heirs of the copartner property. Copartner property, as many of you would already know, is inherited by a Hindu from his father, grandfather or great-grandfather. Basically, there is Section 6 in the Hindu Succession Act of 1956, which provides that interest of a copartner male Hindu who died after the commencement of Act of 1956 shall be governed by survivorship upon the surviving members of the copartnery who were only male members. That was the earlier position before the amendment of 2005. The daughter was not treated as a copartner prior to 2005. 2005 amendment in the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 declared daughter by birth a copartner in her own right. In order to appreciate that amendment, let us read the relevant extracts of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 as it stands today. It should be in front of your screens. Section 6 devolution of interest in copartnery property. What does Section 6 subsection 1 says? On and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession Amendment Act 2005, in a joint Hindu family governed by the Metakshara Law, the daughter of a copartner shall a by birth, yes, by birth become a copartner in her own right in the same manner as the son. So amendment placed daughter equivalent to the position of the son. B of Section 6-1 have the same rights in the copartnery property as she would have had if she had been a son. It clarifies it further basically. Then C of Section 6-1 be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said copartnery property as that of a son. And any reference to a Hindu Metakshara copartner shall be deemed to include a reference to a daughter of a copartner. So it further clarifies that the definition of copartner will include daughter. Provided that nothing contained in the subsection shall affect or invalidate any disposition or alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of property which had taken place before the cut-off day, 20th day of December 2004. Now any property to which a female Hindu subsection 2 of Section 6 becomes entitled by virtue of subsection 1 shall be held by her with the incident of copartnery ownership and shall be regarded not withstanding anything contained in this act or any other law for the time being enforced as property capable of being disposed of by her testamentary disposition. Which means basically that the daughters will have right as if they have right over a self-acquired property to deal with that property which comes to them under the copartnery devolution. They will have unconditional right to further dispose of that property or deal with it in any manner. Then subsection 3, where a Hindu dies after the commencement of the Hindu succession amendment act 2005. His interest in the property is very important. His interest in the property of a joint Hindu family governed by the Metakshara law shall devolve by a testamentary or interstate succession as the case may be under this act and not by survivorship. And the copartnery property shall be deemed to have been divided as if a partition had taken place. So it was it was to be assumed that the property has been partitioned and how it will devolve. The daughter is allotted the same share as is allotted to a son. Yes, the daughter is allotted the same share as is allotted to a son. b. The share of the pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter, meaning the son or daughter dying before the share is devolved, as they would have got had they been alive at the time of partition, shall be allotted to the surviving child of such pre-deceased son or of such pre-deceased daughter, meaning child, meaning grandchild they are talking about. So this right flows from the son and daughter to the children of the son and the daughter. So the rights do not stop only at the stage of the daughter. The share of the pre-deceased child of a pre-deceased son or of a pre-deceased daughter as such child would have got had he or she been alive at the time of the partition shall be allotted. It is very important that share of the pre-deceased son and daughter shall be allotted to the child of such pre-deceased child of the pre-deceased son or of the pre-deceased daughter as the case may be. So it further fortifies the right of the daughter and the daughter's children as well. Now, there is an explanation attached to the section which reads as for the purposes of this subsection the interest of a Hindu Mithakshara copassanar shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition of the property had taken place immediately before his death irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not. So therefore, it is a vested right of a copassanar daughter which comes with the birth and a deemed partition has to be assumed to extract her share. That is what it means. Now, subsection 5, I am skipping subsection 4. Subsection 5, nothing contained in this section shall apply to a partition which has been effected before 20th day of December 2004. Obviously, that is the cutoff date. Then further explanation, for the purposes of this section partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the registration act 1908 or partition effected by a decree of a court. Now, let me apprise the viewers that though the main issue before the Supreme Court, the judgment which came yesterday, the main issue before the Supreme Court was whether it is necessary that the father of the daughter should be living as on the date of amendment for the daughter to claim benefit of the 2005 amendment. But they went beyond that issue. The court magnificently went into the whole intent and objective of the amendment, thereby recognizing the legitimacy and reasonableness and essence of daughter's right. The Supreme Court ruled on the principle issue which was before it that it was not necessary that the father of the daughter should be living as on the date of amendment of 2005 for the daughter to be eligible to claim the benefit of the 2005 amendment. Because copartner's right, Supreme Court said, is by birth. So, there is no prerequisite that the father of the daughter should be living on the date of the amendment as she has not been conferred, the daughter has not been conferred the rights of a copartner by virtue of obstructed heritage. The court said would step into the copartnery as that of a son by mere birth before or after the act. So, she has a birth right to say so in the property of the HEF. Thank you and see you again with some new proposition of law or the settled law.