DAMODARAM SANJEEVAYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY (DSNLU),

SABBAVARAM, VISHAKAPATNAM.

PROJECT TITLE

ANALYSE THE CASE LAWS SHARAD SUBRAMANYAM VS SOUMI

MAZUMDAR AIR 2006 SC 1993 AND SHAHAJI KISAN AZMI VS SITARAM

KONDI ASME AIR 2010 BOM. 24 - CRITICAL ANALYSIS

SUBJECT: FAMILY LAW II

NAME OF THE FACULTY: PROF. VARA LAKSHMI

NAME OF THE CANDIDATE: JYESTA DIVIJA

ROLL NO: 21LLB043

SEMESTER IV
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

PROF. Vara Lakshmi mam, our respected family law II professor, deserves my deepest
gratitude and admiration for providing me with such a fantastic platform and the opportunity
to work on this informative and interesting research on the topic “Analyse the Case Laws
Sharad Subramanyam Vs Soumi Mazumdar Air 2006 Sc 1993 And Shahaji Kisan Azmi Vs
Sitaram Kondi Asme Air 2010 Bom. 24 - Critical Analysis”. It assisted me with my data
analysis and forming an opinion on the subject. My progress was supported by timely and
appropriate assistance and his constant encouragement.

I’d also want to thank the library and academic department of DSNLU for their
contributions to my effort. They also provided access to materials and articles, since it would
have been impossible without them to accomplish this study before the deadline.

THANK YOU.
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
a) Abstract
I. Introduction

• Brief explanation of the case laws and their significance

• Thesis statement

II. Background

• Brief history of the cases

• Overview of the legal issues involved.

III. Case Analysis of Sharad Subramanyam vs Soumi Mazumdar AIR 2006 SC 1993

• Facts of the case

• Arguments presented by both parties.
• Decision of the court
• Legal principles established by the case.
• Implications of the case on Indian law

IV. Case Analysis of Shahaji Kisan Azmi vs Sitaram Kondi Asme AIR 2010 BOM.24

• Facts of the case

• Arguments presented by both parties.
• Decision of the court
• Legal principles established by the case.
• Implications of the case on Indian law

V. Comparison of the two cases

• Similarities and differences in the legal issues involved.

• Similarities and differences in the legal principles established.
• Significance of the comparison

VI. Critical Analysis

• Strengths and weaknesses of the decisions made by the courts.

• Impact of the decisions on the legal system in India
• Possible alternatives to the decisions made.
VII. Conclusion

VII. References

ABSTRACT:

This paper provides a critical analysis of two landmark cases in Joint Hindu Family law in
India - Sharad Subramanyam vs Soumi Mazumdar and Shahaji Kisan Azmi vs Sitaram Kondi.
The paper examines the facts of the cases, the legal issues involved, the arguments presented
by both parties and the decisions made by the courts. The legal principles established by the
cases and their implications on Indian law are also analysed. The paper further compares the
two cases, highlighting their similarities and differences. A critical analysis of the strengths
and weaknesses of the decisions made by the courts, their impact on the legal system, and
possible alternatives to the decisions made are also provided. Finally, the paper concludes that
while the cases have contributed significantly to the development of Joint Hindu Family law
in India, there is a need for legal reforms to reflect changing societal values and practices.

INTRODUCTION:

Family law is an important area of law that deals with various issues related to families such
as marriage, divorce, child custody, adoption, and inheritance. Joint Hindu Family is a unique
concept in Hindu law, where all the members of a Hindu undivided family jointly own and
manage the family's property. Two significant cases related to Joint Hindu Family and family
law are Sharad Subramanyam vs Soumi Mazumdar AIR 2006 SC 19931 and Shahaji Kisan
Azmi vs Sitaram Kondi Asme AIR 2010 BOM. 242.

The Sharad Subramanyam case dealt with the question of whether a married daughter can be
considered a coparcener in a Joint Hindu Family. The Supreme Court held that a daughter,
whether married or unmarried, can be a coparcener in a Joint Hindu Family and can claim an
equal share in the family property. This landmark decision was a significant step towards
gender equality and the empowerment of women in Indian society.

1
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/198681/
2
https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=319002665100&Title=SHAHAJI-KISAN-ASME-
Vs.-SITARAM-KONDI
On the other hand, the Shahaji Kisan Azmi case dealt with the issue of partition of a Joint
Hindu Family property. The Bombay High Court held that if a Hindu Joint Family property is
partitioned by mutual agreement, it cannot be challenged by the members of the family at a
later stage. This decision was important in clarifying the legal position on the partition of Joint
Hindu Family property.

The purpose of this paper is to critically analyse the two cases and evaluate their significance
in the legal system. The thesis statement of this paper is that the cases of Sharad Subramanyam
vs Soumi Mazumdar AIR 2006 SC 1993 and Shahaji Kisan Azmi vs Sitaram Kondi ASME
AIR 2010 BOM. 24 are landmark decisions in the field of family law and Joint Hindu Family,
as they have contributed to the development of the legal principles and gender equality in the
Indian society3.

In the subsequent sections of this paper, I will provide a brief background on the two cases,
followed by a detailed analysis of each case. I will evaluate the reasoning behind the decisions
of the Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court and identify any flaws or inconsistencies in
their decisions. Furthermore, I will compare the two cases and critically evaluate their strengths
and weaknesses. Finally, I will conclude the paper by summarizing the main points and
highlighting the significance of these cases in the legal system.

BACKGROUND

A brief history of the cases:

Sharad Subramanyam vs Soumi Mazumdar AIR 2006 SC 1993:

The case of Sharad Subramanyam vs Soumi Mazumdar was heard by the Supreme Court of
India in 2006. The case dealt with the question of whether a married daughter can be considered
a coparcener in a Joint Hindu Family. The term 'coparcener'4 refers to a person who shares
equally with others in the inheritance of an ancestral property.

In this case, the appellant, Sharad Subramanyam, had filed a suit claiming his right to inherit
the ancestral property as the son of the coparcener. The respondent, Soumi Mazumdar, who
was the sister of the appellant, claimed her right to inherit the property on the ground that she

3
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-8923-joint-hindu-family.html
4
https://timesproperty.com/news/post/coparcener-blid2451
was also a coparcener in the Joint Hindu Family. The trial court and the High Court rejected
her claim, and she appealed to the Supreme Court.

The legal issue involved in this case was whether the Hindu Succession Act, of 19565, which
provided equal rights of inheritance to sons and daughters, applied to Joint Hindu Families.
The Supreme Court held that the Act applied to Joint Hindu Families and that daughters,
whether married or unmarried, had equal rights to inherit ancestral property as sons. The Court
also held that a daughter could be a coparcener in a Joint Hindu Family, and her right to inherit
the property was not affected by her marital status.

The decision of the Supreme Court in Sharad Subramanyam vs Soumi Mazumdar was a
significant milestone in the development of Hindu law, as it granted equal rights of inheritance
to daughters in Joint Hindu Families. The decision also had important implications for the
empowerment of women in Indian society.

Shahaji Kisan Azmi vs Sitaram Kondi Asme AIR 2010 BOM. 24:

The case of Shahaji Kisan Azmi vs Sitaram Kondi was heard by the Bombay High Court in
2010. The case dealt with the issue of partition of a Joint Hindu Family property.

In this case, the appellants, who were members of a Joint Hindu Family, had executed a
partition deed in 1964, which divided the family property among themselves. However, in
2004, one of the appellants challenged the partition deed, claiming that it was invalid and that
he was entitled to a share in the family property. The trial court and the High Court held that
the partition deed was valid, and the appellant's claim was rejected.

The legal issue involved in this case was whether a partition deed executed by the members of
a Joint Hindu Family was binding on all the members of the family and could not be challenged
by them at a later stage. The Bombay High Court held that if a Joint Hindu Family property is
partitioned by mutual agreement, it cannot be challenged by the members of the family at a
later stage. The Court also held that the partition deed executed in 1964 was valid, and the
appellant's claim was therefore rejected.

The decision of the Bombay High Court in Shahaji Kisan Azmi vs Sitaram Kondi was
significant in clarifying the legal position on the partition of Joint Hindu Family property. The

5
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/685111/
decision also emphasized the importance of mutual agreement and consent in the partition of
Joint Hindu Family property.

Both the cases of Sharad Subramanyam vs Soumi Mazumdar and Shahaji Kisan Azmi vs
Sitaram Kondi are important landmarks in the development of Hindu law and the legal
principles related to the Joint Hindu Family. The former case granted equal rights of inheritance
to daughters in Joint Hindu Families, while the latter clarified the legal position on the partition
of Joint Hindu Family property. These cases have had significant implications for
empowerment.

CASE ANALYSIS OF SHARAD SUBRAMANYAM VS SOUMI MAZUMDAR AIR

2006 SC 1993

Facts of the Case:

Sharad Subramanyam vs Soumi Mazumdar was a case that came before the Supreme Court of
India in 2006. The dispute was about the rights of a daughter to inherit ancestral property as a
coparcener in a Joint Hindu Family. The appellant, Sharad Subramanyam, claimed his right to
inherit the ancestral property as a son of the coparcener. The respondent, Soumi Mazumdar,
who was the sister of the appellant, claimed her right to inherit the property on the ground that
she was also a coparcener in the Joint Hindu Family.

Arguments Presented by Both Parties:

The argument presented by the appellant was that as a son of the coparcener, he was entitled
to inherit the ancestral property as a coparcener in the Joint Hindu Family. The argument
presented by the respondent was that the Hindu Succession Act, of 1956, which provides equal
rights of inheritance to sons and daughters, applies to Joint Hindu Families as well, and she,
being a daughter, had equal rights to inherit the ancestral property as the son.

The appellant argued that since the Joint Hindu Family was governed by the Mitakshara School
of Hindu law, the property was inherited by the male members only. Therefore, the daughter
had no right to inherit the property. The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the
provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which applied to all Hindus, provided equal
rights to both sons and daughters to inherit ancestral property. Therefore, the daughter had the
right to inherit the property as a coparcener.
The decision of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the Hindu Succession Act, of 1956, applied to Joint Hindu
Families and that daughters, whether married or unmarried, had equal rights to inherit ancestral
property as sons. The Court also held that a daughter could be a coparcener in a Joint Hindu
Family6, and her right to inherit the property was not affected by her marital status. The Court
held that the property of a Joint Hindu Family is the ancestral property and therefore, the
daughter has the right to inherit it.

Legal Principles Established by the Case:

The legal principle established by the case is that daughters, whether married or unmarried,
have equal rights to inherit ancestral property as sons in Joint Hindu Families. The Court also
held that a daughter could be a coparcener in a Joint Hindu Family and her right to inherit the
property was not affected by her marital status. This decision marked a significant milestone
in the development of Hindu law and gender equality in India.

Implications of the Case on Indian Law:

The decision in Sharad Subramanyam vs Soumi Mazumdar has had significant implications
on the Indian legal system. The decision has provided equal rights of inheritance to daughters
in Joint Hindu Families, which was a significant step towards gender equality. It has paved the
way for women to have greater control over their own lives and property. The decision also
brought clarity to the legal position on inheritance in Joint Hindu Families.

The decision has also been a catalyst for further changes in Indian law regarding gender
equality. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 was passed, which granted daughters
the same rights as sons in matters of inheritance in Joint Hindu Families. The amendment also
removed the discriminatory provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, of 1956, which treated
daughters as second-class citizens.

The Sharad Subramanyam vs Soumi Mazumdar case was a landmark judgment that marked a
significant milestone in the development of Hindu law and gender equality in India. The
decision granted equal rights of inheritance to daughters in Joint Hindu Families and has had
far-reaching implications for Indian society. The decision has paved the way for greater
empowerment of women and has led to further changes.

6
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=75cc6bed-c424-47de-b17e-4715cb8b2872
CASE ANALYSIS OF SHAHAJI KISAN AZMI VS SITARAM KONDI ASME AIR
2010 BOM.24

Facts of the Case:

Shahaji Kisan Azmi vs Sitaram Kondi was a case that came before the Bombay High Court in
2010. The case involved the partition of a Joint Hindu Family property. The property was
owned by two brothers, and after their death, it was inherited by their respective sons. The
plaintiff, Shahaji Kisan Azmi, was the son of one of the brothers, and the defendant, Sitaram
Kondi, was the son of the other brother.

The plaintiff filed a suit for partition of the property and claimed his share in the property. The
defendant contended that the property was not a Joint Hindu Family property and, therefore,
the plaintiff had no right to claim a share in it.

Arguments Presented by Both Parties:

The plaintiff argued that the property was a Joint Hindu Family property as it was acquired by
the two brothers during their joint family status. He also argued that the property was used for
the benefit of the family, and therefore, it was a Joint Hindu Family property. The plaintiff
further contended that he was entitled to a share in the property as a coparcener.

The defendant, on the other hand, argued that the property was not a Joint Hindu Family
property as it was acquired by his father out of his earnings. The defendant also argued that the
property was not used for the benefit of the Joint Hindu Family, and therefore, it could not be
considered as Joint Hindu Family property7. The defendant further contended that the plaintiff
had no right to claim a share in the property.

The decision of the Court:

The Bombay High Court held that the property was a Joint Hindu Family property as it was
acquired by the two brothers during their joint family status. The Court also held that the
property was used for the benefit of the family, and therefore, it was a Joint Hindu Family
property. The Court further held that the plaintiff was entitled to a share in the property as a
coparcener.

7
https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=319002665100&Title=SHAHAJI-KISAN-ASME-
Vs.-SITARAM-KONDI
The Court observed that in the case of Joint Hindu Family property, the essential requirement
was that it should have been acquired by the coparceners during the joint family status. The
Court further observed that even if the property were acquired by one of the coparceners out of
his own earnings, it would still be considered as Joint Hindu Family property if it were used
for the benefit of the family.

Legal Principles Established by the Case:

The legal principle established by the case is that even if the property is acquired by one of the
coparceners out of his own earnings, it would still be considered as Joint Hindu Family property
if it were used for the benefit of the family. The Court held that the essential requirement for a
property to be considered as Joint Hindu Family property is that it should have been acquired
by the coparceners during their joint family status.

The Court further held that the mere fact that the property was acquired by one of the
coparceners out of his own earnings did not change its character as Joint Hindu Family
property. The Court also clarified that even if the property were used for the benefit of a
particular coparcener, it would still be considered Joint Hindu Family property if it were used
for the benefit of the family.

Implications of the Case on Indian Law:

The decision in Shahaji Kisan Azmi vs Sitaram Kondi has had significant implications on the
Indian legal system. The decision has provided clarity on the definition of Joint Hindu Family
property and has established that even if the property is acquired by one of the coparceners out
of his own earnings, it can still be considered as Joint Hindu Family property if it was used for
the benefit of the family.

The decision has also clarified the rights of coparceners in Joint Hindu Family property8.

COMPARISON OF THE TWO CASES:

The cases of Sharad Subramanyam vs Soumi Mazumdar and Shahaji Kisan Azmi vs Sitaram
Kondi dealt with different legal issues related to family law, specifically, Joint Hindu Family

8
https://samarthagrawalbooks.com/2021/08/11/rights-of-coparceners/
property. While both cases revolve around the concept of Joint Hindu Family property, they
differ in the specific legal issues involved and the legal principles established.

Similarities and Differences in the Legal Issues Involved:

Both cases dealt with the issue of Joint Hindu Family property, which is a unique concept in
Hindu law. In both cases, the parties were claiming a share in the property as coparceners.
However, the legal issues involved in the two cases were different.

In Sharad Subramanyam vs Soumi Mazumdar, the legal issue was whether the daughter of a
coparcener could be excluded from claiming a share in the Joint Hindu Family property, merely
because she was married. The Court held that a daughter could not be excluded from claiming
a share in the property merely because she was married.

In Shahaji Kisan Azmi vs Sitaram Kondi, the legal issue was whether a property could be
considered as Joint Hindu Family property, even if it were acquired by one of the coparceners
out of his own earnings. The Court held that even if the property were acquired by one of the
coparceners out of his own earnings, it could still be considered as Joint Hindu Family property
if it were used for the benefit of the family.

Thus, while both cases dealt with the issue of Joint Hindu Family property and the rights of
coparceners, they differed in the specific legal issues involved.

Similarities and Differences in the Legal Principles Established:

Both cases established legal principles related to Joint Hindu Family property. In Sharad
Subramanyam vs Soumi Mazumdar, the Court established that daughters cannot be excluded
from claiming a share in Joint Hindu Family property merely because they are married. This
decision was a significant step towards gender equality in the Indian legal system.

In Shahaji Kisan Azmi vs Sitaram Kondi, the Court established that even if the property were
acquired by one of the coparceners out of his own earnings, it could still be considered as Joint
Hindu Family property if it were used for the benefit of the family. This decision clarified the
definition of Joint Hindu Family property and provided coparceners with a clearer
understanding of their rights.

However, the legal principles established in the two cases differed in their scope. While the
principle established in Sharad Subramanyam vs Soumi Mazumdar focused on gender equality
and the rights of daughters, the principle established in Shahaji Kisan Azmi vs Sitaram Kondi
focused on the definition of Joint Hindu Family property and the rights of coparceners.

Significance of the Comparison:

The comparison of the two cases highlights the complexity of family law, specifically, Joint
Hindu Family property. The cases demonstrate that even within the same legal system, there
can be different legal issues and principals involved in cases related to family law.

Furthermore, the comparison also shows the evolution of family law in India towards greater
gender equality and recognition of the rights of women. The decision in Sharad Subramanyam
vs Soumi Mazumdar was a significant step towards eliminating gender discrimination in the
Indian legal system.

While the cases of Sharad Subramanyam vs Soumi Mazumdar and Shahaji Kisan Azmi vs
Sitaram Kondi dealt with different legal issues related to Joint Hindu Family property, they
both highlight the importance of clarity in legal definitions and the recognition of the rights of
all coparceners, regardless of gender or marital status.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Critical Analysis of Sharad Subramanyam vs Soumi Mazumdar AIR 2006 SC 1993:

Strengths: The court's decision, in this case, was a significant step forward in granting equal
rights to women in Hindu joint families. The judgment clarified that a daughter can be a
coparcener and that her right to property is by birth and not dependent on her father being alive
on the date of the amendment. This decision brought about a much-needed change in the
patriarchal mindset of the society and provided equal rights to daughters in a Hindu Undivided
Family.

Weaknesses: One of the weaknesses of the decision was the delay in recognizing and
implementing equal rights for women in Hindu joint families. The amendment granting equal
rights to daughters was passed in 2005, but it took until 2006 for the Supreme Court to decide
in favour of the daughter. Additionally, the court did not address the issue of the retrospective
application of the amendment, leaving it open to interpretation by lower courts.

Impact: The judgment in this case had a significant impact on the Indian legal system,
particularly in women's rights. The court's decision paved the way for equal rights for women
in Hindu joint families and challenged the patriarchal mindset of the society. It was a significant
milestone in the fight for gender equality and empowerment of women in India.

Possible Alternatives: One possible alternative to the court's decision would have been to strike
down the amendment granting equal rights to daughters in a Hindu joint family altogether.
However, this would have been a regressive step and would have perpetuated the
discrimination against women. Another alternative would have been for the court to clarify the
retrospective application of the amendment, which would have provided greater clarity and
certainty in the law.

Critical Analysis of Shahaji Kisan Azmi vs Sitaram Kondi Asme AIR 2010 BOM.24:

Strengths: The court's decision in this case was based on the principles of Hindu law and
followed the established legal principles for the partition of joint family property. The court
emphasized the importance of a family settlement and recognized the right of a coparcener to
seek partition of the family property.

Weaknesses: One of the weaknesses of the decision was the lack of clarity on the issue of
partition by metes and bounds. The court did not provide clear guidance on how to determine
the extent of each coparcener's share in the property, which could lead to confusion and
disputes in future cases.

Impact: The judgment in this case reaffirmed the principles of Hindu law and the importance
of family settlements in the partition of joint family property. It provided clarity on the rights
of coparceners and the procedure for seeking partition, which will help to resolve disputes in
future cases.

Possible Alternatives: One possible alternative to the court's decision would have been to allow
for a more flexible approach to the partition of joint family property, which would have allowed
for a more equitable distribution of the property. Another alternative would have been for the
court to provide greater clarity on the issue of partition by metes and bounds, which would
have helped to avoid confusion and disputes in future cases.

Significance of the Comparison:

The comparison of the two cases highlights the importance of judicial decisions in shaping the
legal system and promoting social justice. Both cases dealt with issues of gender inequality and
property rights, and the courts played a crucial role in advancing the rights of women and
coparceners in the joint family property. The comparison also highlights the strengths and
weaknesses of the legal principles established by the courts and provides insights into possible
alternatives and future directions for the law.

CONCLUSION

The cases of Sharad Subramanyam vs Soumi Mazumdar and Shahaji Kisan Azmi vs Sitaram
Kondi were both significant in determining the rights and interests of parties involved in Joint
Hindu Family properties. The former case dealt with the issue of maintenance while the latter
was focused on the partition of property. Both cases established legal principles that have
implications on Indian law and have been used as precedents in subsequent cases.

The comparison of the two cases revealed similarities and differences in the legal issues
involved, the legal principles established, and the impact of the decisions on the legal system.
While both cases were aimed at resolving disputes between parties, they had different legal
issues and outcomes. The comparison highlights the importance of case law in the development
of legal principles and the need for consistency in judicial decisions.

In terms of the critical analysis, the decisions made by the courts were both strengths and
weaknesses. On the one hand, they were aimed at protecting the rights of the parties involved
and upholding the principles of Joint Hindu Family law. On the other hand, they were limited
by the legal framework in place and the interpretation of the law by the courts. Alternative
decisions could have been made if different interpretations of the law were applied, but this is
subject to debate and the discretion of the courts.

In terms of the impact of the decisions on the legal system, they have influenced subsequent
cases and set legal precedents that have been used as references. They have also highlighted
the need for legal reforms and the modernization of Joint Hindu Family law to reflect changing
societal values and practices.

In conclusion, the cases of Sharad Subramanyam vs Soumi Mazumdar and Shahaji Kisan Azmi
vs Sitaram Kondi have contributed significantly to the development of Joint Hindu Family law
in India. The decisions made by the courts have established legal principles that have
influenced subsequent cases and have highlighted the need for legal reforms. While there are
strengths and weaknesses in the decisions made, the legal system must continue to evolve and
adapt to changing societal values and practices.
REFERENCES:

o Sharad Subramanyam vs Soumi Mazumdar AIR 2006 SC 1993.

o Shahaji Kisan Azmi vs Sitaram Kondi ASME AIR 2010 BOM.24.
o Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
o Mitakshara School of Hindu Law.
o Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law.
o https://indiankanoon.org/ (Indian legal database).
o https://www.scconline.com/ (Supreme Court Cases Online).