Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal by the plaintiffs (sisters) against the judgment of the Principal District Judge, Gadchiroli, in Regular Civil Appeal No.19 of 2004, which partly modified the decree of the trial court in Regular Civil Suit No.56 of 1999. The suit was for partition of coparcenary property. The trial court had decreed the suit, but the appellate court, while allowing the claim for partition, computed the shares of the parties by applying the concept of notional partition under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as it stood before the 2005 amendment. The appellate court held that three sons would get 1/4 + 1/32 = 9/32 each, while daughters would get equal shares, but the computation was based on the pre-amendment position. The appellants (daughters) challenged this, arguing that the 2005 amendment to Section 6, which gives daughters equal rights in coparcenary property, is retrospective and should apply. The High Court, after hearing counsel for the appellants (respondents unrepresented), allowed the appeal, holding that the amendment is retrospective and daughters are entitled to equal shares as sons. The court set aside the appellate court's judgment and remanded the matter for fresh computation of shares in accordance with the amended Section 6.
Headnote
A) Hindu Succession Act - Section 6 - Daughters' Rights - Notional Partition - The court considered the entitlement of daughters to equal shares in coparcenary property upon notional partition under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The court held that the amendment is retrospective and daughters are entitled to equal shares as sons in the coparcenary property, and the notional partition must be computed accordingly. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether daughters are entitled to equal share in coparcenary property upon notional partition under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended in 2005, and whether the amendment is retrospective.
Final Decision
The second appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 20.1.2007 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Gadchiroli, in Regular Civil Appeal No.19 of 2004 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the appellate court for fresh computation of shares in accordance with the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, giving equal shares to daughters as sons.
Law Points
- Hindu Succession Act
- 1956
- Section 6
- Notional Partition
- Coparcenary
- Daughters' Rights
- Amendment Act of 2005
- Retrospective Effect
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (04) 125
Second Appeal No.315 of 2007
Shri V.N. Morande for Appellants; None for Respondents
Sau. Muktabai Bhaktadas Rohankar, Lilabai Ramchandra Zade, Ratnamala Kawadu Kotgale, Wanmala Atmaram Shelote
Keshav Kisan Dhandre, Wasudeo Kisan Dhandre (Dead) through LRs, Banaji Kisan Dhandre, Hirabai W/o Shrihari Kinekar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second appeal against judgment in Regular Civil Appeal No.19 of 2004, which partly modified the decree in Regular Civil Suit No.56 of 1999 for partition of coparcenary property.
Remedy Sought
The appellants (daughters) sought equal share in coparcenary property under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended in 2005.
Filing Reason
The appellate court computed shares based on pre-amendment Section 6, giving daughters unequal shares compared to sons.
Previous Decisions
Trial court decreed the suit; appellate court partly modified, holding daughters entitled to partition but computed shares unequally.
Issues
Whether the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (2005) is retrospective and applies to pending partition suits.
Whether daughters are entitled to equal shares in coparcenary property upon notional partition.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the 2005 amendment to Section 6 is retrospective and daughters should get equal shares as sons.
Respondents did not appear.
Ratio Decidendi
The amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which came into force on 9.9.2005, is retrospective in nature and applies to pending partition suits. Daughters are entitled to equal shares in coparcenary property as sons upon notional partition.
Judgment Excerpts
This second appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 20.1.2007, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Gadchiroli, in Regular Civil Appeal No.19 of 2004, whereby the appeal was allowed partly...
It appears that the learned Principal District Judge... held that the plaintiffs/sisters can claim partition in the suit property and while fixing the shares upon assumption, the learned Judge held that three sons would get 1/4 + 1/32 = 9/32 each share while daughters would get equal shares, but, after applying the concept of notional partition within the meaning of Sub section (1) of Section 6 of The Hindu Succession Act, 1956...
Procedural History
Regular Civil Suit No.56 of 1999 was decreed by the Civil Judge Junior Division, Gadchiroli on 29.7.2004. Appeal No.19 of 2004 was partly allowed by the Principal District Judge, Gadchiroli on 20.1.2007. The present second appeal was filed against that judgment.
Acts & Sections
- Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Section 6
