A daughter born before the Hindu Succession Act 1956 also acquires coparcenary rights under the 2005 amendment — the right is by birth, not by the date of the daughter's birth.

The Legal Question Before the Court

The question before the court in Danamma was substantially similar to the question that was later definitively resolved in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020): does the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, which grants daughters coparcenary rights "by birth," apply to daughters born before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force? The case was decided at a time when conflicting two-judge bench decisions had created a state of jurisprudential uncertainty that ultimately required a three-judge bench resolution in Vineeta Sharma.

The Court's Decision

In Danamma, the two-judge bench took the view that daughters born even before the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — and certainly daughters born before the 2005 amendment — are entitled to their share as coparceners by virtue of the 2005 amendment, provided the partition of the joint family property had not been effected by a registered instrument or decree of court before 20 December 2004. The court ordered the partition to include the daughters as coparceners.

The subsequent position: Danamma was decided by a two-judge bench and was in direct conflict with the earlier two-judge bench decision in Prakash v. Phulvati (2016). The conflict was resolved by the three-judge bench in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020), which overruled Prakash v. Phulvati and affirmed the Danamma approach — holding that a daughter's coparcenary right accrues from birth and is not contingent on the father being alive on the date of the 2005 amendment.

The Court's Reasoning

The bench examined the language of the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: "the daughter of a coparcener shall, by birth, become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son." The phrase "by birth" was held to reflect the retroactive character of the right. The coparcenary right is a right that the law recognises as having existed from the moment of birth — not a prospective right that accrues from the date of amendment.

The purpose of the 2005 amendment was to achieve substantive gender equality in property rights. A purposive reading of the amendment strongly favoured extending it to daughters born before 1956, since restricting it to post-1956 births would create an arbitrary and unjustifiable distinction between daughters of different generations of the same family.

Practical Implications — What This Means Today

Read together with Vineeta Sharma, Danamma represents the jurisprudential journey toward the settled position on daughters' coparcenary rights. The practical significance is that the 2005 amendment covers daughters of all generations — not just those born after 2005 or after 1956. Any analysis of ancestral Hindu property — for partition, for sale, for succession certificate, or for estate planning — must account for daughters of every generation as full coparceners.

For NRI families with ageing parents holding ancestral property in Kerala, this means that a daughter who emigrated decades ago, and whose grandparents or parents are now deceased, may hold a legally cognisable share in property that has been in the family for generations. No conveyance of such property is complete without her relinquishment, consent, or prior partition.

Relevant Statutory Provisions

  • Section 6, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (as amended 2005) — Daughter as coparcener — the provision interpreted in this case
  • Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 — The amendment conferring coparcenary rights on daughters
  • Section 8, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — General rules of succession for a Hindu male dying intestate

Analysis by Vinode V. Luka, Advocate | Published: May 2026 | Last reviewed: May 2026