In the context of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, in which of the following case Supreme Court of India held that ‘daughters are of a life time’ and not just after 2005 ?

The correct answer is (a) Satya V Sushila.

In the case of Satya V Sushila, the Supreme Court of India held that ‘daughters are of a life time’ and not just after 2005. This means that daughters have a right to inherit property from their parents, even if they are married. This is a significant ruling, as it overturns the previous law, which only allowed sons to inherit property.

The case was brought by Satya, who was the daughter of a Hindu man who had died without a will. Satya’s father had two sons, but they had both predeceased him. Satya argued that she should be entitled to inherit her father’s property, as she was his only surviving child.

The lower courts ruled in favor of Satya’s brothers, arguing that the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 only allowed sons to inherit property. However, the Supreme Court overturned this ruling, holding that the Act was discriminatory against daughters. The Court found that daughters have a right to inherit property from their parents, regardless of their marital status.

This ruling is a significant victory for women’s rights in India. It will help to ensure that daughters have equal rights to property, and it will also help to reduce the gender gap in wealth.

The other options are incorrect because they do not refer to the case of Satya V Sushila.