LANDMARK CASE
Prakash v. Phulavati
(2016) 2 SCC 36 · Supreme Court of India · Family law
At a glance
- Citation: (2016) 2 SCC 36
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Area of law: Family law
- In one line: Yes, it held. This was overruled by Vineeta Sharma (2020).
1 Facts
Daughters claimed coparcenary rights after the 2005 amendment.
2 Issue
Must the father be alive on the amendment date?
3 What the court decided
Yes, it held. This was overruled by Vineeta Sharma (2020).
4 Why it matters
Shows how precedent changes.
5 Think about it
Why was it overruled?
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
← Prakash Singh v. Union of IndiaPramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India →
A short teaching summary for students. Educational content only, not legal advice.