The Supreme Court's 2020 ruling in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma confirmed that the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act applies retrospectively — daughters have equal coparcenary rights regardless of the father's date of death. Five years on, the doctrine is settled but its application continues to surface novel issues.
Limitation defences remain a key area of dispute. While the right itself is not time-barred, particular partition claims face limitation under Article 110 (12 years) of the Limitation Act. We see frequent disputes over when the cause of action accrued — and whether prior partitions or family settlements bar later daughter claims.
Defence Colony, Greater Kailash and Lutyens' Delhi properties have been the focus of high-value claims, given their valuations of ₹50 cr and above. Many of these matters resolve through negotiated settlements rather than full partition decree — preserving family relationships while honouring statutory rights.
Trusts created post-2005 to circumvent coparcenary rights are increasingly being challenged. Where a trust was structured specifically to defeat a daughter's eventual claim, courts have shown willingness to look behind the trust structure. Estate planning that anticipates these claims is essential.
For practitioners advising on inheritance disputes today, the diagnostic conversation begins with: (a) father's death date, (b) ancestral vs self-acquired character of property, (c) prior partitions, family settlements or releases, (d) limitation analysis, and (e) settlement appetite. Each variable shifts the strategy meaningfully.