Summary
In this February 2018 partition decision, the Supreme Court held that the appellant daughters could not be denied shares merely because they were born before the Hindu Succession Act. Applying amended Section 6 during the pending partition suit, it recognized daughters’ coparcenary rights by birth and directed one-fifth shares for each appellant. The plaintiff grandson’s share was fixed at one twenty-fifth. The judgment records the father’s death in 2001; its particular holding is reported as decided, without converting its quoted precedent into a separate factual eligibility finding.
Issues
- Whether daughters born before the Hindu Succession Act could claim equal coparcenary shares under the 2005 amendment during a pending partition suit.
Provisions considered
- Section 6, before and after the 2005 amendment, Hindu Succession Act, 1956The Court considered the notional-partition mechanism and applied amended coparcenary rights to grant the daughters shares in the pending suit. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28)
Held
- The High Court erred in excluding the daughters merely because they were born before the 1956 Act. The judgment discussed the earlier Section 6 notional partition and the 2005 amendment’s equal coparcenary status, rights and liabilities for daughters. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24)
- Coparcenary status under amended Section 6 arises by birth, and the right to seek partition remains inherent in that status. The judgment quoted Prakash v. Phulavati in its historical discussion but granted relief on this record, which expressly recorded the father’s death in 2001; it did not undertake a separate reconciliation of that circumstance with the quoted living-coparcener passage. (¶¶ 1, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28)
- The suit was filed in 2002 and the trial decree made in 2007. The intervening amendment crystallised the appellants’ rights and required consideration. Following Ganduri Koteshwaramma, even a preliminary decree does not foreclose adjustment for changed law before final partition. (¶ 27)
- The Court awarded each appellant daughter one-fifth of the joint-family property and determined the plaintiff grandson’s share as one twenty-fifth through his father’s one-fifth share. It directed the trial court to draw the partition decree accordingly. These are the shares expressly determined in this 2018 judgment. (¶¶ 28, 29)
Result
Appeals allowed; each appellant daughter awarded one-fifth share and plaintiff grandson one twenty-fifth. Trial court to draw the partition decree accordingly. No costs.