Danamma vs Amar Singh

Facts of Danamma vs Amar Singh

In the case of Danamma v Amar Singh, the appellants were Danamma and Suman, daughters of Gurulingappa Savadi and Sumitrai. They were among the four children of the family, with the other two being Arun Kumar and Vijay, the respondents. The dispute arose when the respondents filed a lawsuit for partition of the family property on July 1, 2002, claiming a 1/15th share each. They argued that they, along with the widow of Gurulingappa Savadi, were in joint possession of the properties as coparceners and some properties were acquired from the joint family nucleus in the name of Gurulingappa Savadi.

The appellants, being daughters, were contended not to be coparceners in the joint family as they were born before the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It was also claimed that since they were married and had received gold and money at the time of their marriage, they had relinquished their share in the property.

The trial court ruled in favour of the respondents, stating that the appellants could not be considered coparceners as they were born before the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. This decision was upheld by the High Court in a judgment dated January 25, 2012, which confirmed the decree passed on August 9, 2007, in the partition suit. Dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision, the appellants filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India under Article 136 of the Constitution.

Issues Raised

The legal issues addressed in Danamma vs Amar Singh were:

• Can the appellants, who are daughters of Gurulingappa Savadi, be denied their share in the ancestral property on the grounds that they were born before the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and therefore cannot be treated as coparceners?
• With the enactment of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, do the appellants become coparceners “by birth” in their own right, in the same manner as sons and are therefore entitled to an equal share in the ancestral property as that of a son?

Danamma vs Amar Singh Judgement

In the case of Danamma vs Amar Singh, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment that significantly impacted the interpretation of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The court recognised that the Mitakshara law had undergone significant changes over time, particularly in addressing gender equality in inheritance rights.

The central issue in Danamma vs Amar Singh revolved around Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, which pertains to the coparcener status of daughters in Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs). The Supreme Court held that the 2005 amendment unequivocally granted daughters the same rights and liabilities as sons in coparcenary properties. This meant that daughters, like sons, would be considered coparceners by birth, regardless of whether they were born before or after the enactment of the amendment.

In the specific case of Danamma and Suman, the daughters of Gurulingappa Savadi, the Supreme Court ruled that they were entitled to an equal share in the ancestral property as coparceners. This was a significant departure from the previous interpretations of the law, which often excluded daughters from coparcenary rights based on their birth date relative to the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

The court’s decision also clarified the distribution of shares within the family. It was determined that Gurulingappa Savadi’s property would be divided into five equal shares, one each for his two sons, two daughters and a widow. Consequently, each of the appellants, Danamma and Suman, was entitled to a 1/5th share of the property. The respondent, who was the son of Arun Kumar (one of Gurulingappa Savadi’s sons), was entitled to a 1/25th share, reflecting his portion of his father’s share.

This Danamma vs Amar Singh judgment has been hailed as a progressive step toward gender equality in inheritance laws, ensuring that daughters are treated on par with sons in matters of succession and inheritance in Hindu families.