Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005

11 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

PRASANTA KUMAR SAHOO & ORS.versusCHARULATA SAHU & ORS.

2023 INSC 31929 March 2023Dismissed

The case involved a partition suit concerning the ancestral and self‑acquired properties of the late Kumar Sahoo, claimed by his daughter Charulata Sahu and contested by the heirs of his son Prafulla Sahoo. The trial court issued a preliminary decree allocating a one‑sixth share to the daughter in ancestral lands and o

HAR NARAINI DEVI & ANRversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2022 INSC 98820 September 2022Dismissed

The appellants, the widow and daughter of Ishwar Singh, challenged the validity of Section 50(a) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, claiming it violated Articles 14, 15, 21 and was repugnant to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 after the latter's Section 4(2) was deleted by the 2005 amendment. The Supreme Court held tha

RAM CHARAN & ORS.versusSUKHRAM & ORS.

2025 INSC 86517 July 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, who are the legal heirs of Dhaiya, a Scheduled Tribe woman, filed a suit for partition of land that belonged to their maternal grandfather, claiming that their mother was entitled to an equal share. The trial court and the High Court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove any cu

PRAKASH & ORS.versusPHULAVATI & ORS.

2015 INSC 79316 October 2015Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (sections 6(1), 6(3), 6(5)) operates retrospectively. The appellant‑appellants argued that the amendment should not apply to a daughter whose father, a coparcener, died before the Act’s commencement, contending that the amendment is prospecti

ROHIT CHAUHANversusSURINDER SINGH & ORS.

2013 INSC 46615 July 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff Rohit Chauhan sued to declare that his father's sale and release deeds alienating 104 kanals of land were void, arguing that the land was ancestral coparcenary property. The father, Guiab Singh, had received the land in a partition of his father's estate and later, after Rohit's birth in 1982, became a so

GANDURI KOTESHWARAMMA & ANR.versusCHAKIRI YANADI & ANR.

2011 INSC 75712 October 2011Appeal(s) allowed

A suit for partition of a Mitakshara coparcenary property was filed by a son (respondent No.1) against his father, brother and two sisters (the appellants). The trial court passed a preliminary decree in 1999, amended in 2003, determining the parties' shares, but a final decree had not been rendered. While the suit was

VINEETA SHARMAversusRAKESH SHARMA & ORS.

2020 INSC 48711 August 2020Directions issued

The Supreme Court examined the interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. It held that the amendment confers coparcenary status on daughters—whether born before or after the amendment—on and from 9 September 2005, giving them the same rights a

MALLEESWARIversusK. SUGUNA AND ANOTHER

2025 INSC 10808 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a daughter of a co-parcener, sought to amend a 2003 preliminary decree in a partition suit to claim a one‑third share under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The trial court dismissed her application, the High Court set aside that dismissal, but the respondent obtained a review order that reman

REVANASIDDAPPA & ANR.versusMALLIKARJUN & ORS.

2023 INSC 7831 September 2023Reference answered

The appeal concerned the inheritance rights of children born of void or voidable Hindu marriages who are legitimated under Section 16(1) or 16(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The central issue was whether such children are entitled to a share in the ancestral or coparcenary property of their parents, or only to the

DANAMMA @ SUMAN SURPUR & ANR.versusAMAR AND ORS.

2018 INSC 841 February 2018Appeal(s) allowed

Gurulingappa Savadi died in 2001 leaving a widow, two sons and two daughters (the appellants). A partition suit was filed in 2002 by one son, Amar, seeking a share of the joint family property. The trial court (decree 2007) and the Karnataka High Court denied the daughters any share, holding they were not coparceners b

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search