Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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