Regard being had to the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which of the following statements is not correct?
A. If a Hindu woman had any existing interest in a property howsoever small, prior to the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956,the same would blossom into a full-fledged right by virtue of the operation of Section 14(1) thereof
B. The right of daughter in coparcenary property is not lost by passing of preliminary decree for partition before the 20th day of December, 2004
C. If a right is created in a Hindu female for the first time in respect of any property under any instrument or under a decree, where a restricted estate in such property is prescribed, the provision of Section 14(2) of the above Act would be attracted and would not convert such a right into a full-fledged right of ownership of the property
D. The right of daughter in coparcenary property is not lost by any testamentary disposition of property which had taken place before the 20th day of December, 2004
Answer: Option D
asnwer is B
Explanation of the Incorrect Statement (B)
B. The right of daughter in coparcenary property is not lost by passing of preliminary decree for partition before the 20th day of December, 2004.
This statement is INCORRECT based on the binding Supreme Court judgments interpreting the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.
The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 granted daughters equal coparcenary rights by birth.
Section 6(5) of the Amendment Act contains a saving clause which explicitly states that the Act does not apply to a partition that was effected before the 20th day of December, 2004 (the date the Bill was introduced in Parliament).
The Explanation to Section 6(5) states that "partition" includes a partition effected by a decree of a court.
The Supreme Court, in landmark judgments like Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020), clarified that while the daughter's right is by birth (retroactive), the final determination of the rights is governed by the saving clause. If the rights were crystallised and severed by a final decree or a preliminary decree which had attained finality before December 20, 2004, the daughter cannot claim a reopening of the partition to get a share under the 2005 Amendment.
Therefore, a preliminary decree for partition that had taken place and attained finality before December 20, 2004, would result in the daughter losing the right to claim a share under the 2005 Amendment, making statement B incorrect.