Page 1 of 5 - Cover Page Submission ID trn:oid:::26404:74180160
Vineeta Case New.docx
Maharashtra National Law University, Aurangabad - CN-585684
Document Details
Submission ID
trn:oid:::26404:74180160 2 Pages
Submission Date 794 Words
Dec 16, 2024, 10:16 AM GMT+5:30
4,225 Characters
Download Date
Dec 16, 2024, 10:17 AM GMT+5:30
File Name
Vineeta Case New.docx
File Size
15.2 KB
Page 1 of 5 - Cover Page Submission ID trn:oid:::26404:74180160
Page 2 of 5 - Integrity Overview Submission ID trn:oid:::26404:74180160
88% Overall Similarity
The combined total of all matches, including overlapping sources, for each database.
Filtered from the Report
Bibliography
Quoted Text
Cited Text
Small Matches (less than 10 words)
Match Groups Top Sources
3 Not Cited or Quoted 88% 88% Internet sources
Matches with neither in-text citation nor quotation marks
0% Publications
0 Missing Quotations 0% 52% Submitted works (Student Papers)
Matches that are still very similar to source material
0 Missing Citation 0%
Matches that have quotation marks, but no in-text citation
0 Cited and Quoted 0%
Matches with in-text citation present, but no quotation marks
Integrity Flags
0 Integrity Flags for Review
Our system's algorithms look deeply at a document for any inconsistencies that
No suspicious text manipulations found. would set it apart from a normal submission. If we notice something strange, we flag
it for you to review.
A Flag is not necessarily an indicator of a problem. However, we'd recommend you
focus your attention there for further review.
Page 2 of 5 - Integrity Overview Submission ID trn:oid:::26404:74180160
Page 3 of 5 - Integrity Overview Submission ID trn:oid:::26404:74180160
Match Groups Top Sources
3 Not Cited or Quoted 88% 88% Internet sources
Matches with neither in-text citation nor quotation marks
0% Publications
0 Missing Quotations 0% 52% Submitted works (Student Papers)
Matches that are still very similar to source material
0 Missing Citation 0%
Matches that have quotation marks, but no in-text citation
0 Cited and Quoted 0%
Matches with in-text citation present, but no quotation marks
Top Sources
The sources with the highest number of matches within the submission. Overlapping sources will not be displayed.
1 Internet
lawbhoomi.com 88%
Page 3 of 5 - Integrity Overview Submission ID trn:oid:::26404:74180160
Page 4 of 5 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26404:74180160
1 Case Commentary- Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma
Background
The case of Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma dealt with the interpretation of amended Section
6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which granted daughters equal coparcenary rights as
sons. The correction, effective from 9th November 2005, raised questions about whether
daughters born before 2005 could claim these rights and if both father and son demanded to be
alive on 9th November 2005 for the vittles to apply. former judgments like Prakash v. Phulvati
and Danamma v. Amar had disagreeing views on the retrospective or prospective nature of
these rights. To resolve these issues, a three- judge bench was set up to clarify the correct
interpretation of Section 6 and address related cases for thickness in the law.
Issues Raised
1.The apex court’s verdict addressed the following crucial issues Whether the father coparcener
need to be alive on 9 November 2005?
2.Whether a son born before 9 November 2005 could claim equal rights and arrears in
coparcenary as a son?
3.Whether the statutory fabrication of partition created by the contingency to Section 6 of the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956, actually redounded in partition or dislocation of coparcenary?
4.Whether a plea of oral partition after 20 December 2004 be accepted as a statutorily
recognised mode of partition?
Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma Judgement
The verdict of the Supreme Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma clarified
several pivotal aspects regarding the coparcenary rights of daughters in Hindu common family
property. The court emphasised that common Hindu family property is considered unstopped
heritage, where the right to partition is essential from birth. This means that whether the father
coparcener was alive or dead on the date of the correction to the Hindu Succession Act in 2005
is immaterial to the son’s right to inherit. The court ruled that the correction granting equal
coparcenary rights to daughters is retroactive, meaning it applies from the date of birth of the
son, not from the date of the correction. The court in Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma also
1 addressed the conception of ideational partition, stating that it does n't inescapably affect in an
Page 4 of 5 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26404:74180160
Page 5 of 5 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26404:74180160
factual partition of the property. ideational partition is a legal fabrication used to determine the
shares of coparceners in the common family property and it does n't affect the son’s right to
claim her share. The court clarified that indeed if a primary decree for partition has been passed,
it is n't final and can be modified grounded on posterior events similar as the birth of a new
coparcener or the death of an being one. To help abuse and fraudulent claims of partition, the
court ruled that any partition after 20 December 2004 must be genuine and listed or ordered by
a court. Oral partitions are can’t accepted as a defence unless supported by strong substantiation
similar as separate possession of family members, different appropriation of income, entries in
profit records or other public documents attesting the partition. The court in Vineeta Sharma v
Rakesh Sharma clarified that an oral partition can not serve as a defence unless it's proven to
be genuine through specific substantiation. While some oral partitions may be valid, the burden
of evidence lies heavily on the defence. To substantiate an oral partition, one or further of the
following pieces of substantiation must be presented to the court Separate possession of family
Members must be living independently, indicating a dissolution of the common Hindu family
before the partition. Appropriation of income If the family is separated and a partition has
passed, income should be appropriated else or in the case of a business, the enterprise must
have been divided and participated. Entry in profit records There should be sufficient entries
in profit records attesting the separation of family members. Other public documents An
sanctioned public document must corroborate that the partition has been authentically
1 effectuated. Without similar substantiation, the court wo n't honor an oral partition as valid,
icing that daughters are n't deprived of their equal rights through fabricated partitions.
Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma Summary
Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma was a corner case in Indian law concerning the coparcenary
rights of daughters in Hindu common families. The case revolved around the interpretation of
Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, particularly whether daughters born before the
correction in 2005 were entitled to equal coparcenary rights as sons. The Supreme Court
clarified that the amended vittles applied retrospectively from the date of the Act’s enactment,
giving daughters equal rights in coparcenary property. The court also addressed issues related
to ideational partition, emphasising the need for genuine partitions after 2004 to help abuse.
This judgment has had significant counteraccusations for gender equivalency and property
rights in Hindu families.
Page 5 of 5 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26404:74180160
