LANDMARK CASE

Danamma v. Amar

(2018) 3 SCC 343 · Supreme Court of India · Family law

At a glance

Citation: (2018) 3 SCC 343
Court: Supreme Court of India
Area of law: Family law
In one line: Yes, and they were given equal shares.

1 Facts

Daughters claimed shares in ancestral property after the 2005 amendment.

2 Issue

Are daughters coparceners?

3 What the court decided

Yes, and they were given equal shares.

4 Why it matters

Part of the line leading to Vineeta Sharma.

5 Think about it

How did Vineeta Sharma resolve conflicts?

6 Analyse it yourself

Read the full judgment from an official source or a law database, then brief it in seven steps: facts, issues, arguments, decision, ratio, obiter and significance. Always check the citation before you rely on it.

7 More cases on Family law

ABC v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2015) 10 SCC 1
Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (2017) 8 SCC 746
Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse (2014) 1 SCC 188
Bai Tahira v. Ali Hussain Fidaalli Chothia (1979) 2 SCC 316
Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha (2011) 1 SCC 141
D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010) 10 SCC 469

All 366 landmark cases · Today's Case of the Day · Weekly quiz

← D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal Danial Latifi v. Union of India →

A short teaching summary for students. Educational content only, not legal advice.