Site navigation

Which statement reflects the Supreme Court's holding in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma on a daughter's…

Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) 9 SCC 1 held that a daughter is a Mitakshara coparcener by birth on the same footing as a son. The father need not have been alive on…

Choose your answer

Which statement reflects the Supreme Court's holding in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma on a daughter's rights under amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956?

Select one answer
Answer and explanation

Correct answer D

Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) 9 SCC 1 held that a daughter is a Mitakshara coparcener by birth on the same footing as a son. The father need not have been alive on 9 September 2005. A daughter born before the amendment can assert rights from its commencement, subject to the statutory savings for qualifying dispositions or partitions before 20 December 2004.

Option feedback

Option A

Incorrect. Coparcenary status arises by birth rather than upon partition.

Option B

Incorrect. The right arises by birth rather than on the father's death.

Option C

Incorrect. The father need not have been alive when the 2005 amendment commenced.

Option D

Correct. The Court recognised the daughter's coparcenary status by birth without a requirement that the father survive until commencement.

Practice for these exams

Related exam syllabi

Related questions in this topic