PROBLEM QUESTIONS BASED ON LEADING HSA JUDGMENTS
🔹 Problem 1 (Based on Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma)
Question
A Hindu joint family consists of a father F, son S and daughter D.
F died in 2003. After the 2005 amendment, D files a suit in 2018 claiming coparcenary share in joint family property.
S contends that D is not entitled since F was not alive on 09-09-2005.
👉 Decide.
Answer
Under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act (as amended in 2005), a daughter becomes a coparcener by birth. The Supreme Court has clarified that the right is unobstructed heritage and does not depend on the father being alive on the date of amendment. The amendment is retroactive in operation.
Conclusion
✔ D is entitled to coparcenary share.
❌ Objection of S is rejected.
🔹 Problem 2 (Based on Danamma v. Amar)
Question
A Hindu male H died in 2001 leaving behind joint family property, two sons and two daughters who were married before 2005. In 2010, partition proceedings were initiated. Sons argue that married daughters cannot claim share.
👉 Decide.
Answer
Marriage does not affect the status of a daughter as a coparcener. Section 6 confers equal rights on daughters irrespective of marital status. Gender equality is the foundation of the amendment.
Conclusion
✔ Married daughters are entitled to equal coparcenary shares.
🔹 Problem 3 (Based on V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy)
Question
A Hindu widow W was given property under a compromise decree “for her maintenance only and without power of alienation”. She later sold the property. Purchaser claims valid title. Heirs challenge the sale.
👉 Decide.
Answer
Where property is given to a Hindu female in recognition of a pre-existing right (such as maintenance), Section 14(1) applies and the limited estate enlarges into absolute ownership. Restrictive clauses do not defeat statutory enlargement.
Conclusion
✔ W became absolute owner.
✔ Sale is valid.
🔹 Problem 4 (Based on Arunachala Gounder v. Ponnusamy)
Question
A Hindu male X inherited property from his father in 1990. X dies intestate in 2018 leaving behind a son S and grandchildren G. G claims birthright in the property.
👉 Decide.
Answer
Property inherited by a son from his father after commencement of the Hindu Succession Act is self-acquired property. Succession under Section 8 breaks the coparcenary chain. Children of S do not acquire any right by birth.
Conclusion
❌ G has no birthright.
✔ S alone succeeds.
🔹 Problem 5 (Based on Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai)
Question
A Hindu coparcener P dies leaving widow W, son S and daughter D. No partition took place during P’s lifetime. How is W’s share calculated?
👉 Decide.
Answer
A notional partition must be assumed immediately before the death of P. W is entitled to:
-
A share in the notional partition, and
-
An additional share as a Class I heir.
Legal fiction must be carried to its logical conclusion.
Conclusion
✔ W gets double benefit—partition share + succession share.
🔹 Problem 6 (Mixed – Likely 15-mark Question)
Question
A Hindu male dies intestate in 2004 leaving joint family property, widow, son and married daughter. Daughter claims coparcenary rights in 2016. Son disputes. Widow claims enhanced share.
👉 Decide fully.
Answer (Outline)
-
Daughter is coparcener by birth → entitled to equal share
-
Marriage irrelevant
-
Notional partition to be assumed
-
Widow gets share in partition + Class-I share
Conclusion
✔ Daughter and son get equal shares
✔ Widow’s share calculated as per notional partition rule
🏆 EXAM TIP (VERY IMPORTANT)
Whenever you see:
-
2005 amendment → think Vineeta Sharma
-
Married daughter → Danamma
-
Female property + restriction → Tulasamma
-
Inherited property → Arunachala Gounder
-
Calculation problem → Gurupad