Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers Minor Injuries No Bar for Framing Charges Under Section 307 IPC if Intent to Kill is Present: Supreme Court Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case Allegations of Dowry Demand in FIR Found Vague and Driven by Civil Property Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry-Cruelty Case Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute Properties Acquired By Gift During Marriage Remain Separate Property Of Spouse Under French Civil Code; Husband Entitled To Half Share Only In Community Assets: Madras High Court Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against Closure Of Human Trafficking Complaint, Flags Lack Of Bona Fides Access To Justice Cannot Be Denied When Tribunal Is Not Functioning': Calcutta High Court Holds Writ Maintainable Under Article 226 Amid Stalled Conciliation Proceedings Violation Of Natural Justice Overrides Bar On Maintainability Under Section 18 MSMED Act: Orissa High Court Panic In A Train Does Not Mean Self-Destruction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants ₹8 Lakh Compensation For Passenger's Death In Stampede Section 101 JJ Act | Date Of Knowledge Of Order, Not Mere Knowledge Of Disposal, Commences Limitation Period: Delhi High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Order Declaring Inam Land As Govt Property Without Determining Occupancy Rights Proviso To Section 125(3) CrPC Does Not Limit Enforcement Of Monetary Relief Orders Under Section 20 DV Act: Telangana High Court Regularization Of Deviation Within Permissible Plot Envelope Governed By Uniform Fee Schedule, Arbitrary 5X Penalty Unsustainable: J&K&L High Court Man Who Blackmailed Woman With Her Own Nude Photos To Rape Her Repeatedly Can't Escape Conviction Merely Because His Voice Sample Wasn't Taken: Delhi High Court Arbitration Clause In Sale Agreement Cannot Be Invoked If Subject Matter Involves Third-Party Title Disputes: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Errs In Dismissing Amendment Plea If New Facts Emerge From Written Statement: Punjab & Haryana High Court 'No Compensation For Own Wrong': Gujarat High Court Rules Tortfeasors & Legal Heirs Cannot Claim Motor Accident Damages Under Section 166 MV Act Allahabad High Court Pulls Up Police And Magistrates Over Illegal Remand Of Juvenile Accused Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) Hindu Marriage Act | Spouse Seeking Divorce On Grounds Of Cruelty And Desertion Must Prove Allegations With Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Cannot Let Land Become Banjar: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Appointment Of Receiver Under BNSS Amidst Pending Civil Title Disputes Section 8 Arbitration Act | Executing Court Must Refer Parties To Arbitration If Dispute Falls Within Scope Of Compromise Decree: Madhya Pradesh High Court Suit For Damages Arising Out Of Tortious Injury Barred By Limitation If Not Filed Within One Year: Punjab & Haryana High Court 72-Hour Gap Not Proximate: Calcutta High Court Quashes Murder Conviction, Holds 'Last Seen' Theory Inapplicable When Time Gap Is Wide Original Owner Cannot Create Trust Over Property Already Sold; Separate Relief For Title Declaration Not Required: Madras High Court

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