This case analysis is done by Ms. Navita, 2nd Year, B.A. LLB (hons.) from Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab.
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 2913-2915 of 2018
Bench: Justice A.S. Bopanna, Justice J.B. Pardiwala.
Background / Facts
In 1969, Kumar Sahoo passed away, leaving three children: Ms. Charulata, Ms. Santilata, and Mr. Prafulla.The daughters claimed their shares in both ancestral and self-acquired properties of their late father.The Trial Court granted the daughters their respective shares in the properties.
During the appeal process, Ms. Santilata and Mr. Prafulla entered into a settlement. In this settlement, Santilata gave up her rights in the property to Prafulla in exchange for Rs. 50,000. Despite the settlement, the High Court dismissed the appeal and declared the settlement invalid. The appellants, representing Mr. Prafulla, have now filed an appeal against the High Court’s decision.
Issues involved
- How are the rights of daughters governed in the devolution of coparcenary property, considering the principles established in the Vineeta Sharma?
- Can a court consider and apply an amendment to the law governing parties in a partition suit if the amendment occurs before the conclusion of the final decree proceedings?
- Can a decree by consent in a suit for the partition of joint property be sustained if it involves only some of the parties and not all?
Contentions of Appellant
Appellants argue that the lower courts wrongly classified properties as self-acquired, asserting that all properties are ancestral. Appellants discuss the impact of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, arguing against allowing the respondent to use the amendment to alter rights after many years, especially considering the prior settlement deed. They claim that the rights of Respondent 2 were extinguished and transferred to them through a settlement in 1991, opposing any attempt to unsettle this disposition due to the 2005 Amendment. They further contend that applying the 2005 Amendment retrospectively would create issues for alienations made between 1965 and 2005, proposing remitting the matter to the trial court for resolution. Referring to the proviso to Section 6 of the 1956 Act (as amended in 2005), appellants argue that dispositions before 20-12-2004 should not be invalidated due to the 2005 Amendment.
Contentions of Respondent
Referring to Vineeta Sharma, it was contended that the plaintiff is now entitled to a one-third share in all properties of Shri Kumar Sahoo at the time of filing the suit. Due to the 2005 Amendment to Section 6 of the 1956 Act and the Vineeta Sharma case, the daughters are claimed to be entitled to an equal share with the son in coparcenary properties. The plaintiff, being one of the daughters, asserts a larger and equal share in the ancestral property. It is argued that both the plaintiff and defendants are entitled to a one-third share in both ancestral and self-acquired properties of the late Kumar Sahoo. Explaining the amended Section 6(1) of the 1956 Act, the counsel states that alienations before 20-12-2004 are permitted, but the alienated property would fall to the share of the coparcener who made the alienation unless legal binding necessity is proven. He points out that the trial court held the alienation as part of the share of Defendant 1.
Regarding the settlement between Defendants 1 and 2, it is argued that the plaintiff was not part of the compromise, did not receive notice, and did not agree to its terms.
Judgment
In this case, the court considered the daughters’ entitlement to a share in the properties of late Kumar Sahoo. The daughters claimed a one-third share in all the properties, relying on the Vineeta Sharma case.
The court emphasized that while the preliminary decree had been confirmed by the High Court, the final decree was yet to be passed. The recent amendment to Section 6 of the 1956 Act, favoring daughters, prompted the court to recognize the daughters’ right to request a reevaluation of their shares. The court rejected the argument that the preliminary decree in a partition suit cannot be changed during final decree proceedings after a change in the applicable law. It clarified that the law had been amended, and the court could adjust shares accordingly.
The plaintiff, as per the court, is entitled to a one-third share in all of her late father’s properties, rendering the question of whether the properties were ancestral or not insignificant.
The court said the settlement between Defendants 1 and 2 was not allowed because the plaintiff didn’t agree in writing. According to the current rule (Order 23 Rule 3CPC), any agreement to settle a legal claim must be written, signed by all parties, and show a complete agreement.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the court, recognizing the recent legal amendments favoring daughters’ rights in ancestral property, granted the plaintiff a one-third share in all of her late father’s properties. This case underscores the court’s commitment to upholding legal procedures and ensuring fair distribution of property rights in partition suits.
References
- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/45932283/.
- Prasanta Kumar Sahoo v. Charulata Sahu, (2023) 9 SCC 641,
- http://www.scconline.com/DocumentLink/Nl7b1VaX.
