Case Note & Summary
The present Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants, who are the daughters of the deceased Mukundappa, against the judgment and decree dated 09.07.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Shikaripura in R.A.No.2/2018, which reversed the judgment and decree dated 26.10.2017 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Shikaripura in O.S.No.15/2014. The appellants filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the joint family properties left by their father Mukundappa. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the appellants, holding that they are entitled to equal share in the properties. However, the lower appellate court set aside the trial court's judgment and dismissed the suit, holding that a compromise decree entered into in a previous suit (O.S. No. 15/2014) between the respondents and other parties was binding on the appellants. The High Court framed a substantial question of law as to whether the compromise decree is binding on the appellants who were not parties to the suit. The High Court held that the compromise decree is not binding on the appellants as they were not parties to the suit and the compromise was not entered into by them. The court further held that the appellants, being daughters, are entitled to equal share in the coparcenary property under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the lower appellate court, and restored the judgment and decree of the trial court, thereby decreeing the suit for partition in favor of the appellants.
Headnote
A) Hindu Law - Partition - Daughters' Rights - Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - The appellants, daughters of the deceased Mukundappa, filed a suit for partition claiming equal share in the joint family property. The trial court decreed the suit, but the lower appellate court reversed it, holding that a previous compromise decree in O.S. No. 15/2014 was binding on the daughters. The High Court held that the compromise decree was not binding on the daughters as they were not parties to the suit and the compromise was not entered into by them. The court further held that the daughters are entitled to equal share in the coparcenary property under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Compromise Decree - Binding Nature - Order XXIII Rule 3 - A compromise decree is binding only on the parties to the suit and their representatives. The daughters, who were not parties to the earlier suit, cannot be bound by the compromise decree. The lower appellate court erred in dismissing the suit on the ground that the compromise decree was binding on the daughters. (Paras 5-8) C) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Coparcenary - Daughters' Share - Section 6 - The daughters are entitled to equal share in the coparcenary property as coparceners by birth. The court relied on the principle that daughters have the same rights as sons in the joint family property. The trial court correctly decreed the suit in favor of the daughters. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court dismissing the suit for partition filed by the daughters is sustainable in law, particularly in light of the daughters' rights under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and whether the compromise decree in a previous suit is binding on the daughters who were not parties to it.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court dated 09.07.2018 in R.A.No.2/2018, and restored the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 26.10.2017 in O.S.No.15/2014, thereby decreeing the suit for partition in favor of the appellants.
Law Points
- Partition
- Hindu Succession Act
- 1956
- Section 6
- Coparcenary
- Compromise Decree
- Binding Nature
- Daughters' Rights
- Substantial Question of Law
