Definition
A member of a Hindu Undivided Family who has a birth right in the ancestral property and the right to demand partition—now including daughters by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.
A coparcener under Mitakshara Hindu law is a person who has a share in the coparcenary property by virtue of birth in the family. The coparcenary consists of the common male ancestor and his male lineal descendants in the male line within four degrees. The 2005 Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act extended coparcenary status to daughters of a coparcener—they are coparceners by birth, with equal rights to demand partition and equal liability for debts. Coparcenary property is ancestral property held jointly by members who acquired it by birth, not by will or gift.
Statutory Definition
Section 6, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (as amended 2005): 'On and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, in a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener shall, by birth, become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son and have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son.'
Etymology & Origin
From Old French 'coparcener' (co = together + parcener = partaker, from Latin 'partitio'). The term entered English law to describe co-heirs who take jointly, and was adopted in Indian Hindu law to describe members of the Mitakshara coparcenary.
Full Legal Analysis
Coparcener: The Birth-Right Stakeholder in Hindu Family Property
A coparcener is a member of a Hindu joint family’s coparcenary who has a birth-right in the ancestral property. Unlike an heir who acquires property on another’s death (by succession), a coparcener acquires rights the moment they are born—not by inheritance but by the fact of birth in the coparcenary. The right fluctuates with births and deaths in the family: each birth dilutes the shares of existing coparceners, and each death enlarges the shares of survivors. The Mitakshara coparcenary is thus a living, breathing legal entity whose composition changes with the biological events of the family.
Mitakshara vs. Dayabhaga
India has two schools of Hindu law governing joint families. The Mitakshara school (followed in all states except West Bengal and Assam) recognises the birth-right theory—a coparcener acquires rights at birth. The Dayabhaga school (Bengal/Assam) does not recognise undivided joint family property in the same way; rights accrue only on the father’s death. After the 2005 Amendment, the HSA governs both schools for purposes of daughters’ rights.
The 2005 Amendment: Daughters as Coparceners
The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 inserted Section 6(1) making daughters coparceners by birth “in the same manner as the son.” Prior to this, daughters could not be coparceners; they took their share of property only on succession (death of a male coparcener without a direct male heir). The 2005 Amendment gave daughters: (a) the same rights in coparcenary property as a son; (b) the right to demand partition; (c) liability for debt satisfaction from coparcenary property; and (d) the right to be a Karta (manager of the HUF) — a right judicially extended in Sujata Sharma v. Manu Gupta (2015) 220 DLT 563 (Delhi HC).
Vineeta Sharma: Retroactive Application
The Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) 9 SCC 1 held that Section 6 operates retrospectively: a daughter born even before 2005 is a coparcener from birth. The earlier decision in Prakash v. Phulwati (2016) had held that the father must have been alive on 09.09.2005 (commencement of the Amendment) for the daughter to claim coparcenary rights—this was overruled. The Vineeta Sharma ruling created significant litigation as daughters sought to reopen family partition arrangements dating back decades.
Alienation of Coparcenary Property
A coparcener cannot individually alienate their undivided share in coparcenary property without the consent of the other coparceners, except for certain purposes recognised by Hindu law (legal necessity, benefit of the estate, or acts of management by the Karta). However, after the Badrinarayan Shankar Bhandari v. Omprakash Shankar Bhandari (2014) ruling, the Supreme Court clarified that individual coparceners can alienate their specific shares, and creditors of individual coparceners can attach those shares.
Who is NOT a Coparcener
Wives of coparceners (and daughters-in-law), sisters, and extended family members who are not within four degrees of lineal descent are members of the joint family but not coparceners. They have a right to maintenance and a share in partition but do not have the birth-right in coparcenary property that coparceners possess. This distinction determines who can demand partition and who merely participates in it.
“The daughter is a coparcener from birth in the same manner as the son. This right is not derived from the 2005 Amendment—it is the recognition that the daughter always had this right, which was wrongly denied.” — Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020)
This Term in Indian Statutes
Hindu Succession Act, 1956, 1956
"On and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, in a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener shall, by birth, become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son and have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son."
Daughters equal coparceners by birth with same rights as sons including partition demand
