MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Partition Suit l Equal Rights to Daughters Irrespective of Father’s Demise Date, Affirms Karnataka High Court in Landmark Decision

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a judgment that reinforces the equal rights of daughters in Hindu families, the Karnataka High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, has upheld the rights of daughters as coparceners, irrespective of their father’s demise date. The court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal No. 2586 of 2010, thereby affirming the concurrent decrees of the lower courts in a partition suit.

Justice Magadum, in his judgment dated November 2, 2023, explicitly stated, “daughters are entitled to equal rights as sons irrespective of the date of the father’s demise,” aligning with the principles laid down in the landmark judgment of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma (2020). This ruling comes as a significant stride towards gender equality in property rights under the Hindu Succession Act.

The appeal was against the modification of the preliminary decree in a partition suit, where the courts had recognized the rights of daughters as coparceners under the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The appellants contested this modification, arguing that the rights of the daughters had concluded in the preliminary decree and could not be modified in the final decree proceedings.

However, the High Court observed that “the preliminary decree in partition suits can be altered or amended in final decree proceedings in the event of a change in law.” The court emphasized the retrospective nature of the 2005 Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, clarifying that “the right of a coparcener is by birth and it is not necessary that father coparcenary should be living as on 09.09.2005.”

This judgment has significant implications for pending final decree proceedings, where it has been clarified that the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, is applicable, overriding the Hindu Succession (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1990.

Date of Decision: 2 November 2023

SMT. SUSHEELAMMA (Since Dead by LRs) and others VS SEETHARAMAIAH (Since Dead by LR) and Others

 

Latest Legal News