33 thoughts on “Judgments without Tears | Part 1 | ‘Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma’ | Supreme Court on Daughter’s Coparcenary Rights.

  1. Keeping in mind the situation like we have in India. There are not very accurate records of proceeds for properties disposed off before this Judgement. How are daughters going to claim for all that. And there are instances where the ancestral property of father is disposed off and converted into a new property in Son’s or daughter in law’s name. I believe the judgment is highly impractical keeping in mind the patriarchal fabric of the country. Changing the laws in retrospect wont change the mindset of that time and the setup created consequentially. This is going to exponentially enhance property disputes and cordial family relations. Drawing an analogy could be like giving effect to Kesavananda since 1950.
    Further What would be the road ahead as will this judgement automatically include daughters’ name in the property records for intestate successions given effect prior to 2005.


  2. Sir, the way you explains the stuff can’t be found anywhere and with these examples you have excellently made this lengthy judgment handy for us. Needless to say Sir you have nailed it again, looking forward for part 2. Thank you so much Sir.


  3. Hi Bharat, the article gives clarity, more appreciated because the succession laws are popularly seen as complicated and boring.The article really do give an insight of how interesting property laws can be. Even though the family arrangement is fairly simple and easily understood, a diagram of it and of the notional partition at the beginning could be added.


  4. Bharat Ji, You are by everyday justifying your retirement. Please throw some light on the Judgements repercussions on law of limitation.


  5. Pingback: Vineet Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 32601 of 2018. Delivered on 11.08.2020 – TSJA

  6. Pingback: Suit for Partition – TSJA

  7. A very good article indeed! Thank you, Bharat. However, after having read the judgment there is one more complex question that came to mind. When a bona fide purchaser of an ancestral property purchases the property based on the decision in Phulavati, i.e. the daughters are not considered as coparceners since the coparcener father passed away before 2005 amendment, can the daughters post Vineeta Sharma sue the bona fide purchasers for claiming that the sale is invalid since their consent was not taken?


  8. Hello Sir, very well explained. This is really helpful. What is Retroactivity?
    Is there any difference between Retrospectivity and Retroactivity?


  9. Thank you so much sir to explain beautifully this landmark judgement . Please sir I have a request to you ,sir like landmark judgement on daughter’s right you have explained could you please sir explain all upcoming
    LANDMARK judgementt of Hon’ble SC.



  11. when will be the second part of this judgement out?…..dealing mainly with retrospective and retroactive application of this 2005 amendment law, along with detailed analysis with examples as you have given in this part1


  12. क्या माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा 32601मे यह कहा गया है कि 20 -12 -2004 से पहले हो चुके बटवारे या पंजीकृत वसीयत द्वारा मिला कोई सम्पत्ति या मकान मे बेटिया हिस्सा नहीं ले सकती??


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s