Case Note & Summary
The litigation originated from a suit for partition, separate possession, and mesne profits filed on 28 January 1995 by Shantavva, the first wife of Kannappa, and her daughter Ratnavva. Kannappa, the propositus, had two wives: Shantavva (first wife) and Thirakavva (second wife). The second marriage was void as the first marriage subsisted. Ratnavva and Laxmavva are daughters from the first marriage, and Roopa is the daughter from the second marriage. The suit was contested by Kannappa, the second wife Thirakavva, and Roopa. During the pendency of the suit, Kannappa died, and Laxmavva was impleaded. The trial court, the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ranebennur, passed a judgment and decree on 30 March 2007 in O.S. No. 12 of 1995, partly decreeing the suit. The trial court held that the two daughters from the first marriage, the daughter from the second marriage, and the first wife were each entitled to a 1/4th share. Aggrieved by this decree, the second wife and her daughter filed Regular First Appeal No. 1659 of 2007. The plaintiffs filed Cross-Objection No. 101 of 2008 seeking a larger share. The appeal and cross-objection remained pending for 16 years until final hearing on 5 April 2023. The appellants contended that the daughter had no right over the properties when the suit was filed in 1995, as her father was alive; that the gift deeds executed on 18 February 2003 in favour of Roopa were valid alienations before the cut-off date of 20 December 2004 under the amended Hindu Succession Act; and that certain properties transferred to the plaintiffs before the suit should be treated as their share, rendering the suit not maintainable. The respondents argued that the 2005 amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, is retrospective, conferring coparcenary status on the daughter from birth; that the gift deeds violated a subsisting court prohibitory order and were invalid; and that the suit was maintainable. The High Court, while delivering the judgment, expressed concern over the 16-year delay in hearing the appeal, describing it as unreasonably long and calling for systemic remedies. The text of the judgment provided is incomplete, and therefore the court's final decision, ratio decidendi, and operative directions are not available from the extract.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's decree of partition was correct in law, specifically regarding the rights of daughters and the validity of the gift deeds
Case Details
2023 LawText (KAR) (04) 8
Regular First Appeal No. 1659 of 2007 c/w RFA Cross Obj. No. 101 of 2008
Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde
N.P. Vivekmehta (for appellants), Sanjay S. Katageri (for respondent No.1), M.V. Hiremath & Shivanand D.S. (for respondent No.2)
Smt. Thirakavva & Smt. Roopa
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Suit for partition and separate possession and mesne profits
Remedy Sought
Plaintiffs Shantavva and Ratnavva sought partition of joint family properties
Filing Reason
Claim for shares as daughters and wife of Kannappa, the propositus
Previous Decisions
Trial court (Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Ranebennur) partly decreed the suit on 30.03.2007, granting 1/4th share each to the two daughters from first marriage, the daughter from second marriage, and the first wife
Issues
Whether daughter/plaintiff had a right to partition in 1995 before the amendment to Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956?
Whether gift deeds executed on 18.02.2003 by defendant No.1 in favour of his daughter from second marriage are valid despite a court prohibitory interim order?
Whether properties transferred by defendant No.1 to plaintiffs before filing suit should be accounted as their share, affecting maintainability of the suit?
Whether the 2005 amendment to Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act is retrospective to confer coparcenary rights on daughters from birth?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants contended that daughter had no right over properties when suit was filed as father was alive, gift deeds executed on 18.02.2003 before cut-off date were valid, and properties transferred earlier to plaintiffs should be treated as their share, rendering suit not maintainable.
Respondents argued that Section 6 amendment is retrospective, making daughter a coparcener from birth, gift deeds violated subsisting court interim order and were invalid, and suit was maintainable.
Judgment Excerpts
The suit is decreed in part. The trial court held two daughters from the first marriage, the daughter from the second marriage, and the first wife, all entitled to 1/4th share each.
Sixteen years is an unreasonably long period to decide the appeal. Something needs to be done on priority.
The questions of law, raised in the appeal are already well settled. However, the time taken for this case to be listed for a final hearing is indeed a matter of concern for all the stakeholders in the system.
The suit was filed on 28.01.1995, before the commencement of the Act of 39 of 2005, amending Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Procedural History
Suit O.S. No. 12/1995 filed on 28.01.1995 before the Senior Civil Judge, Ranebennur. During pendency, Laxmavva was impleaded after the death of defendant No.1 Kannappa. Trial court passed judgment and decree on 30.03.2007, partly decreeing the suit. Appeal RFA No. 1659/2007 and Cross-Objection No. 101/2008 filed. Appeal pending for 16 years until final hearing on 05.04.2023.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 96, Order XLI Rule 1, Order XLI Rule 22
- Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Section 6
