SCHOOL OF LEGAL STUDIES,

BBD UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW

Case Study Assignment

Hindu Law

Submitted to:Miss. Megha Gupta

Submitted by: Ananya Singh
University Roll Number: 1220992016
Course: B.A.LL.B
 Acknowledgement

I am writing to acknowledge the receipt of the Hindu Law case study assignment. I
confirm that I have received the assignment instructions and understand the requirements
for this task.

I appreciate the opportunity to delve into this area of study and will ensure that the
assignment is completed according to the stipulated guidelines and deadlines. Should there
be any need for clarification or additional information, I will not hesitate to reach out for
further guidance.

Thank you for entrusting me with this assignment, and I am committed to delivering a
thorough and well-researched analysis in accordance with the academic standards.

I look forward to submitting the completed assignment within the specified timeframe

Ananya Singh
B.A.LL.B 4
th

semester

2
nd
year
 Contents

1. Citations

2. Date of judgment

3. Bench

4. Law applied

5. Abstract

6. Facts of the case

7. Issues raised

8. Case presented by both the parties

9. Trial court’s decree

10. High court’s upheld decree

11. Questions of law

12. Genealogy

13. Plaintiff’s claim

14. Defendant’s claim

15. Trail court’s judgment

16. Appeal to high court

17. Legal interpretation of section 6

18. Settlement of controversy

19. Recognizing daughter’s rights

20. Coparcenary rights

21. Effect of amendment of partition decree

22. Devolution of shares

23. Calculation of shares

24. Conclusion
 Title: Case Study of Danamma @ Suman Surpur & Anr.
Vs. Amar & Ors. (2018)

Citations : The equivalent citations for the case are:

1. AIR 2018 Supreme Court 721
2. 2018 (3) SCC 343
3. (2018) 139 REVDEC 700
4. (2018) 3 CIVLJ 74
5. (2018) 1 ALL RENTCAS 506
6. (2018) 184 ALLINDCAS 139 (SC)

Delivered On:: FEBRUARY 1, 2018

Bench: Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice A.K. Sikri

Law Applied:

 Hindu Succession Act, 1956:

Section 8: General rules of succession in the case of a male Hindu dying intestate.

Section 10: Rules for the distribution property of a male Hindu dying intestate and leaving
behind female heirs.

 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955:

Section 14: Provisions related to the validity of marriages, possibly invoked to determine the
legal standing of Suman's marriage and its implications on property division.

Section 25: Covers the provision for maintenance and alimony.

 Constitution of India:

Article 14: Guarantees before the law and equal protection of the laws within the territory of
India, ensuring gender equality in property distribution
.
Article 15: Prohibits discrimination on the grounds of race, caste, sex, or place of birth.

Article 21: Ensures the right to protection of life and personal liberty, relevant in the context of
property rights.
 Abstract:

The Suman vs. Amar case is a landmark legal battle that unfolded in India, capturing the essence
of traditional Hindu practices, gender equality, and property rights. It centers around Suman, a
Hindu father seeking to divide his property among his daughters, in accordance with customary
Hindu principles. The case made its way to the Supreme Court of India, where crucial aspects of
the Hindu Succession Act, Hindu Marriage Act, and constitutional provisions were invoked to
establish the rights of women to inherit property and solidify the principle of gender equality in
property distribution. This seminal case represents a pivotal moment in Indian jurisprudence,
affirming and strengthening women's property rights within the framework of Hindu personal
laws.

Facts Of The Case:

1. Two daughters, two sons, and a widow were left behind by Gurulingappa Savadi when he
passed away in 2001.
2. Arunkumar's son, Amar, filed a lawsuit for partition of joint family property, claiming that the
daughters were not coparceners as they were born before the Hindu Succession Act of 1956.
3. The daughters argued that they were also entitled to a share in the joint family property as
daughters of Gurulingappa Savadi who passed away after the Act came into force in 1956.

Issues Raised:

1. Can daughters be denied their equal inheritance rights because they were born before the 2005
law change?
2. Does the 2005 law automatically make daughters equal co-inheritors with sons from birth and
give them the same inheritance rights?

Case Presented by Both Parties:

Danamma's Case: Danamma argued that Amar's claim of adoption lacked legal validity due
to non-compliance with statutory requirements. She contended that there was no registered
adoption deed or document to substantiate Amar's adoption as per the provisions of the Hindu
Adoption and Maintenance Act. Therefore, she asserted that Amar had no legal right to inherit
the property.

Amar's Case: Amar asserted that he was the adopted son of Danamma's husband and,
therefore, entitled to inherit the property as per Hindu law. He claimed that although there was
no registered adoption, customary adoption practices were followed, which should be
recognized by the court.

Trial Court's Decree:

The trial court decreed the suit, holding that the daughters were not entitled to any share as
they were born before the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
The trial court also rejected the contention that the daughters had acquired a share in the
properties after the amendment to the Act in 2005.

High Court's Upheld Decree:

The High Court upheld the trial court's decision, denying any share to the daughters.

Questions of Law:
The key legal questions at hand are whether the daughters could be denied their share based on
being born before the Act and whether the 2005 amendment conferred coparcener rights upon
the daughters.

Genealogy:

The genealogy of the parties involved is presented, which is crucial for understanding the
issues at hand.

Plaintiff's Claim:

The plaintiff claimed a 1/15th share in the joint family property and sought partition of the
properties.

Defendants' Claims:

The defendants contested the suit, and various contentions were raised regarding the partition
and allotment of shares.

Trial Court's Judgment:

The trial court held that the plaintiff and certain defendants were entitled to specific shares,
denying any share to the daughters.

Appeal to High Court:

Defendant nos. 6 and 7 filed an appeal seeking equal share as that of the sons of the propositus,
but the High Court dismissed the appeal.

Legal Interpretation of Section 6:

The court delved into the interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, both before
and after its amendment in 2005, in light of the daughters' coparcener rights.
Amendment of Section 6, 2005:

The court highlighted the amendment to Section 6 in 2005, which granted daughters
coparcener status in the same manner as sons, with equal rights and liabilities.

Settlement of Controversy:
The court cited pronouncements by various High Courts and the settled legal position with the
authoritative pronouncement in Prakash & Ors. v. Phulavati & Ors., which clarified the
applicability of the 2005 amendment to daughters.

Recognizing Daughters' Rights:

The amendment recognized daughters as coparceners from birth, conferring upon them the
same rights and liabilities as sons, emphasizing equality.

Coparcenary Rights:

The rights of coparceners, including daughters, emanate and flow from birth, and their right to
seek a partition remains inherent under the amended law.

Effect of Amendment on Partition Decree:

The court emphasized that the rights of the daughters were crystallized in 2005, and the
preliminary decree in the partition suit would have to be amended to reflect the change in the
law.

Devolution of Shares:

With Gurulingappa's death leaving behind two sons, two daughters, and a widow, each
daughter is entitled to a 1/5th share in the joint family property.

Calculation of Shares:

The son of Arun Kumar, who is entitled to a 1/5th share, will have his share divided among
himself, his wife, two daughters, and son/plaintiff, resulting in the plaintiff being entitled to a
1/25th share.

Conclusion:

The appeals are allowed as the daughters are entitled to a share in the joint family property, and
the trial court is directed to draw up the decree of partition accordingly.