Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Shobha Purushottam Zilpe, the original plaintiff, is the daughter of Dadaji and sister of defendant No.1. She filed a suit for partition and separate possession claiming a 1/3rd share in the suit property, which consisted of two shops and a residential house, alleging that the property was self-acquired by her father. The defendants contended that the property was ancestral and that the plaintiff had executed a relinquishment deed. The trial court found the property to be ancestral and held that the defendants failed to prove the relinquishment deed. Applying the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (as amended in 2005), the trial court decreed the suit and granted the plaintiff a 1/9th share. The first appellate court reversed this decision, holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to any share. The plaintiff appealed to the High Court. The High Court framed a substantial question of law regarding the applicability of Section 6 prior to its amendment read with Section 8. The High Court noted that the trial court had correctly applied the amended Section 6, which makes a daughter a coparcener by birth. The High Court relied on the decisions in Danamma v. Amar and Uttam v. Saubhag Singh, which held that daughters have coparcenary rights since birth and are entitled to a share in ancestral property. The High Court found that the appellate court had misconstrued the provisions and set aside its judgment, restoring the trial court's decree. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Hindu Succession Act - Coparcenary Rights of Daughter - Section 6 (as amended in 2005) - The plaintiff, a daughter, claimed a share in the ancestral property of her father. The trial court granted her 1/9th share, but the appellate court reversed it. The High Court held that by virtue of the 2005 amendment to Section 6, a daughter is a coparcener by birth and entitled to a share in the ancestral property. The appellate court's judgment was set aside and the trial court's decree was restored. (Paras 1-6) B) Hindu Succession Act - Partition - Daughter's Share - Section 6 (as amended) - The court relied on Danamma v. Amar and Uttam v. Saubhag Singh to hold that the daughter has coparcenary rights since birth and can claim partition. The appellate court's misinterpretation of the provisions was erroneous. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the first appellate Court was legally justified in concluding that the plaintiff (daughter) was not entitled to a share in the suit property in light of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 prior to its amendment read with Section 8 of the said Act.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the first appellate court is set aside and that of the trial court is restored. The plaintiff is entitled to 1/9th share in the suit property. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Hindu Succession Act
- 1956
- Section 6 (as amended in 2005)
- Section 8
- coparcenary rights of daughter
- partition
- ancestral property
