Daughter's Coparcenary Right and a Pre-2004 Registered Partition
Chhotu Ram, a Mitakshara Hindu of Rohtak, held 48 kanals of ancestral agricultural land with his two sons, Suraj and Mohan, as coparceners. His daughter Kamlesh was born in 1972 and married in 1995. On 14 June 2002 Chhotu Ram, Suraj and Mohan executed a registered partition deed dividing the 48 kanals equally among the three of them and reciting that Kamlesh had no share. Mutation was entered accordingly, each cultivated his share separately, and Suraj mortgaged his share to a bank in 2006. Chhotu Ram died intestate on 3 March 2009, survived by his widow Shanti, Kamlesh, Suraj and Mohan. In 2024 Kamlesh sued for partition, claiming one-fourth of the entire 48 kanals as a coparcener by birth under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act as amended in 2005, pleading that the 2002 deed was a sham never acted upon, and alternatively claiming a share in her father's estate. The brothers plead that the partition is protected by the proviso to Section 6(1).
1. Does the registered partition deed of 14 June 2002 defeat Kamlesh's claim to be a coparcener in the 48 kanals?
Read the worked answer
The statutory framework. Section 6(1) as amended confers on a daughter of a coparcener the status of a coparcener by birth 'in the same manner as a son', but the proviso saves a partition effected before 20 December 2004, and the Explanation confines 'partition' to one made by a registered deed of partition or effected by a decree of court. In Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) 9 SCC 1 the Supreme Court held that the daughter's right flows from birth and does not depend on the father being alive on 9 September 2005, but also held that a genuine pre-20 December 2004 partition by a registered deed binds her. The requirement of registration is not a formality; it is the safeguard against precisely the kind of afterthought pleaded here.
Application. The deed is registered, dated 14 June 2002, and is followed by mutation, separate cultivation of the three shares and Suraj's mortgage of his own share in 2006. Those are objective indicia that the partition was real and acted upon, not a paper arrangement. Kamlesh's plea that it was a sham needs evidence, and the burden is on her; an averment in the plaint is not proof. Nor can she complain of exclusion in 2002, because under the unamended Act she was not a coparcener then and the father was entitled to effect a partition among the coparceners, even without their consent.
Conclusion. The proviso to Section 6(1) protects the 2002 partition, and Kamlesh's claim to a coparcenary share in the whole of the 48 kanals fails.
2. Assuming the 2002 deed is upheld, what share, if any, does Kamlesh take on her father's death on 3 March 2009?
Read the worked answer
Conversion of the coparcenary interest. Once the partition of 14 June 2002 took effect, each one-third share ceased to be coparcenary property and became the separate property of Chhotu Ram, Suraj and Mohan respectively. Chhotu Ram's 16 kanals (48 ÷ 3) therefore descended on his death by intestate succession under Section 8 read with the Schedule to the Hindu Succession Act, and not by survivorship.
Class I heirs. His heirs are his widow Shanti, his daughter Kamlesh, and his sons Suraj and Mohan. All four are Class I heirs in the Schedule. The old Section 23, which restricted a female heir's right to claim partition of a dwelling house, has no application to agricultural land and was in any event repealed with effect from 9 September 2005. Kamlesh's marriage is immaterial; a married daughter stands on the same footing as a son.
Computation. Each heir takes one-fourth of 16 kanals, that is 4 kanals. Kamlesh is thus entitled to 4 kanals out of the original 48 - not one-fourth of 48, and not nothing.
Custom. The brothers cannot fall back on a family or agricultural custom excluding married daughters: Section 4 of the Act gives it overriding effect over any custom or usage governing Hindus in matters of succession, and the Punjab and Haryana courts have consistently applied the statute to agricultural land in the State.
3. If Kamlesh succeeds in proving that the 2002 deed was never acted upon, or that the partition was in fact an unregistered oral arrangement, how is her share to be worked out?
Read the worked answer
Why the partition would fail. The Explanation to Section 6(1) recognises only a partition by registered deed or by decree of court. An oral partition is not outside the law of partition, but Vineeta Sharma requires it to be proved by clear and cogent evidence, ordinarily by public documents such as revenue records, jamabandis, passbooks and mutation reflecting the division, and it cannot be accepted on the basis of interested testimony alone. If the deed is shown to be a sham, or the partition is shown to have been unregistered, it does not attract the proviso.
Effect. Kamlesh then remains a coparcener in the ancestral 48 kanals by birth. On Chhotu Ram's death on 3 March 2009 a notional partition is worked out immediately before his death among the four coparceners - Chhotu Ram, Suraj, Mohan and Kamlesh - giving 12 kanals each. Chhotu Ram's 12 kanals then devolve by intestate succession on his four Class I heirs, that is 3 kanals each.
Result. Kamlesh takes 12 kanals by the notional partition plus 3 kanals by succession, a total of 15 kanals out of 48. Suraj and Mohan take 12 plus 3 each, that is 15 kanals each, and Shanti takes 3 kanals. The arithmetic must be worked in this sequence, since applying the succession first and the notional partition afterwards produces the wrong figure and is a common error.