Case Note & Summary
This matter comprises a batch of second appeals before the Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, presided over by Justice R.G. Ketkar. The central legal issue requiring determination was whether Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, operates prospectively or retrospectively. This question arose from conflicting interpretations among various benches of the High Court and the Supreme Court. The lead appeal is Second Appeal No. 25 of 2013, along with numerous connected matters, all raising the same core issue. The parties were represented by a large array of advocates, with Senior Advocates A.V. Anturkar and R.S. Apte, and other counsel arguing for retrospective application, while counsel such as G.N. Salunkhe and Pankaj Shinde argued for prospective application. The background involved a Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Vaishali Satish Ganorkar v. Satish Keshavrao Ganorkar, which had held that amended Section 6 is prospective in operation. Later, two single judge decisions, Babu Dagadu Awari v. Baby w/o Namdeo Lagad and Krishna Foundation Malkapur v. Puja Jaywant Shinde, apparently took a contrary view. The appellants in these second appeals contended that the Division Bench decision in Vaishali Ganorkar does not lay down the correct law and should be referred to a larger bench. They argued that the said decision is per incuriam of the Supreme Court's judgment in Ganduri Koteshwaramma v. Chakari Yanadi, which, according to them, declared the amendment retrospective. The counsel for the appellants advanced several arguments: that the Division Bench in Vaishali Ganorkar erroneously relied on the marginal note of the section; that the use of the word 'shall' as indicative of future tense is not a proper basis for statutory interpretation; that the Bench did not consider the entire section, including the explanation and proviso, nor the Statement of Objects and Reasons which aims to place daughters on par with sons; and that the decision in Ganduri Koteshwaramma, by approving S. Sai Reddy v. S. Narayan Reddy, holds Section 6 to be retrospective, thus making Vaishali Ganorkar per incuriam. On the other hand, the respondents' counsel argued that the Division Bench correctly interpreted the clear language of Section 6 as operating only prospectively. They submitted that the provision unambiguously confers rights on daughters born on or after the amendment date. The court heard all parties at length and reserved the matter for orders. The judgment excerpt ends abruptly, and no final decision is recorded in the provided text. Thus, the ultimate holding on the retrospectivity issue and the question of referring Vaishali Ganorkar to a larger bench remain unknown from this fragment.
Headnote
A) Hindu Law - Succession - Coparcenary Rights of Daughter - Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 6 - Whether the amendment is prospective or retrospective - The central legal question in this batch of second appeals is the temporal operation of amended Section 6, which grants equal coparcenary rights to daughters - The court considered arguments on both sides: some counsel submitted that the amendment is retrospective, relying on Supreme Court decisions in Ganduri Koteshwaramma and S. Sai Reddy, while others contended that the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Vaishali Satish Ganorkar correctly held it prospective based on the language of the provision - The court reserved judgment after hearing extensive submissions, including whether the Division Bench decision is per incuriam and whether the matter should be referred to a larger bench (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 is prospective or retrospective in operation.
Final Decision
Not mentioned (judgment text cuts off before final decision)
Law Points
- Interpretation of Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act
- 1956 as amended in 2005
- prospective or retrospective operation
- coparcenary rights of daughters
- per incuriam doctrine
- reference to larger bench
- marginal note in statutory interpretation
- grammar in statutory interpretation
- binding precedent
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (06) 76
Second Appeal No. 25 of 2013 along with Second Appeal Nos. 58 of 2014, 132 of 2009, 147 of 2014, 220 of 2014, 240 of 2011, 466 of 2011, 566 of 2011, 607 of 2013, 796 of 2012, 846 of 2003, 1096 of 2012, 641 of 2013
Mr. G.S.Godbole, Mr. P.B.Shah, Mr. A.V.Anturkar, Mr. R.S.Apte, Mr. Vaibhav Patankar, Mr. P.P.Kulkarni, Mr. G.N.Salunkhe, Mr. V.S.Talkute, Mr. Sandeep Salunkhe, Mr. Abhijit Kulkarni, Mr. T.D.Deshmukh, Mr. N.J.Patil, Mr. N.B.Khaire, Mr. Pratap M. Nimbalkar, Mr. M.M.Mahajan, Mr. Pankaj Shinde, Mr. G.M.Joshi, Mr. Ravindra Pachundkar, Mr. S.C.Wakankar
Shri Ashok Gangadhar Shedge and others (lead appeal: Second Appeal No. 25 of 2013)
Ramesh Gangadhar Shedge, since deceased, through legal heirs and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Batch of second appeals involving the interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended in 2005, specifically whether the amendment grants coparcenary rights to daughters retrospectively or prospectively.
Remedy Sought
The appellants in various second appeals sought a determination that amended Section 6 operates retrospectively and/or that the Division Bench decision in Vaishali Satish Ganorkar be referred to a larger bench for reconsideration.
Filing Reason
Not explicitly mentioned, but presumably the lower courts applied Section 6 either prospectively or retrospectively, leading to the second appeals.
Previous Decisions
A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Vaishali Satish Ganorkar v. Satish Keshavrao Ganorkar held that amended Section 6 is prospective. Two single judge decisions (Babu Dagadu Awari v. Baby w/o Namdeo Lagad and Krishna Foundation Malkapur v. Puja Jaywant Shinde) took a contrary view, creating a conflict. The Supreme Court in Ganduri Koteshwaramma v. Chakari Yanadi and S. Sai Reddy v. S. Narayan Reddy were also relied upon.
Issues
Whether Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 is prospective or retrospective in operation.
Whether the Division Bench decision in Vaishali Satish Ganorkar is per incuriam and requires reference to a larger bench.
Whether the Single Judge decisions contrary to Vaishali Ganorkar are correct.
Submissions/Arguments
Mr. Anturkar argued that Vaishali Ganorkar incorrectly relied on the marginal note and grammar to hold Section 6 prospective; the amendment is retrospective as the object is to give daughters equal rights, and Ganduri Koteshwaramma supports that view.
Mr. Godbole argued that Vaishali Ganorkar is per incuriam of Ganduri Koteshwaramma, which held the amendment retrospective, and the matter should be referred to a larger bench.
Mr. Salunke and others argued that the language of Section 6 is clear and supports prospectivity; the Division Bench correctly interpreted it, and the amendment does not apply to daughters born before 9.9.2005 if the father was alive on that date.
Judgment Excerpts
The question whether Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short 'Principal Act') as amended by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (for short 'Amendment Act') is prospective or retrospective in operation, falls for consideration.
Mr. Anturkar submitted that the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vaishali Satish Ganorkar and Ors Vs. Satish Keshavrao Ganorkar and Ors requires to be referred to a larger Bench as the said decision does not lay down correct Law.
Mr. Godbole also submitted that Section 6 is retrospective. The decision of the Division Bench of this Court is per incurium of the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Ganduri Koteshwaramma.
On the other hand, Mr Salunke and Mr. Shinde and other learned counsel submitted that the Division Bench has rightly held that amended Section 6 is prospective in operation and not retrospective.
Procedural History
The matters are second appeals filed before the Bombay High Court. The specific procedural history of each appeal is not detailed in the provided text; however, they all raise the common legal question regarding the interpretation of Section 6. The court heard arguments and reserved judgment.
Acts & Sections
- Hindu Succession Act, 1956: 6, 23, 29A
- Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005: 6
