SYNOPSIS: CASE ANALYSIS DANAMMA SUMAN SURPUR V AMAR

ATHARVA KOTWAL 20

INTRODUCTION:

The issue of succession equality and rights for women has been extremely important and
perhaps controversial in recent times. However, it is very heartening to see that our Indian
Courts have continued to adopt a pro-women approach in a number of legal aspects, one of the
most important of which is in relation to ancestral properties.

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India (SC) upheld the right of a daughter to an
equal share as a son in an ancestral property, including daughters who were born before the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA) came into force. The judgement was delivered by Justice
A.K. Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan on February 1st, 2018 in the matter of Danamma v.
Amar.

The Bench further clarified that the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (2005 HSA
Amendment) to Section 6 of the HSA makes a daughter a “coparcener” since birth (one who
shares equally in the inheritance of an undivided joint family property, and since 2005 this
applies equally to both sons and daughters). This fact gives her the same rights and liabilities
as a son while asserting that it is applicable in all property disputes filed before 2005 as well.
The marriage of the daughter makes no difference to this position.

A Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) is a unique concept that exists under Hindu law. It is a body
that has a separate legal personality, comprising of all lineal descendants of a common ancestor
and includes their wives and daughters. A ‘coparcener’ is a lineal descendant who is within
four degrees from a common ancestor; such a person acquires an undivided interest in the HUF
property immediately at birth.

Prior to the 2005 HSA Amendment, a daughter ceased to be a coparcener in her father’s HUF
upon her marriage. However, as per the amended law, whilst a married woman becomes a
‘member’ in her husband’s HUF (i.e. she has very limited rights in the husband’s HUF), she
also continues to be a coparcener in her father’s HUF

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In 2002, a plea was filed in Karnataka by two sisters of the ‘Savadi family’, seeking a share in
their late father Mr. Gurulingappa Savadi’s property. The trial court dismissed their plea in
2007 and held that the sisters were not entitled to any share as they were born prior to the
enactment of the HSA, and therefore could not be considered as coparceners. It also rejected
the alternate contention that, in any case, the sisters had acquired a share in the HUF property
after the 2005 HSA Amendment. The view of the trial court was affirmed by the Karnataka
High Court, leading to the appeal in the SC

LITERATURE REVIEW:

The researcher relied both on primary and secondary sources to write this paper. I primarily
used the reasoning given in the case to analyse the argument that supports could the daughters
of the propositus be denied their share, on the ground that they were born prior to the 2005
HSA Amendment The researcher also relied on various blog posts which specifically addressed
this question.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES:

1. To analyse the Danamma Suman Surpur & Another v Amar judgement .

2. To understand the impact of the judgement on various protecting womens rights under
HSA.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS:

1. Could the daughters of the propositus be denied their share, on the ground that they
were born prior to the 2005 HSA Amendment, and, therefore, cannot be treated as
coparceners??
2. Or, alternatively, with the passing of the 2005 HSA Amendment, do the appellants
become coparceners “by birth” in their “own right in the same manner as the son” and,
therefore, are entitled to an equal share as that of a son??

TENTATIVE BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. ECSR Net https://www.escr-net.org/caselaw/2018/danamma-suman-surpur-another-v-

amar-others-civil-appeal-nos-188-189-2018
2. Is The Amendment That Gave Equal Right To Daughters In Ancestral Property
Retrospective? 3-Judge SC Bench To Consider https://www.livelaw.in/is-the-
amendment-that-gave-equal-right-to-daughters-in-ancestral-property-retrospective-3-
judge-sc-bench-to-consider-read-order/