Plaintiff filed a suit against her mother and brothers in respect to the partition of property A53, South Extension, New Delhi. This property was purchased by the plaintiff's father for residential purpose; also some part of the property was let out. After the intestate demise of the father in 1999 and one of the brothers of the plaintiff in 2001, plaintiff wanted to claim an equal share in the family property as a daughter. Defendants argued that the oral partition was done earlier in which the plaintiff was not given any share in the ancestral property, but they had no valid evidence for that. The issue raised was whether it is necessary for the father to be alive during the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act 2005. Whether Hindu Succession had a retrospective effect?
The Supreme Court held that daughters will have Coparcenary rights even if the coparcener died before the enforcement of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act. In effect, the Court enumerates that the 2005 Amendment would have retrospective effect, provided that daughter must be alive at the time of such Amendment. The court also stated that the oral partition is not valid unless it has sufficient evidence. Justice Arun Mishra in the verdict said “Once a Daughter is always a Daughter”, she should be given equal share in the property like the son.