DANAMMA @ SUMAN SURPUR & ANR. versus AMAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2018] 2 S.C.R. 553 · Decided: 01-02-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
553
DANAMMA @ SUMAN SURPUR & ANR.
v.
AMAR AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 188-189 of 2018)
FEBRUARY 01, 2018
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 – s.6 – Applicability
of – One ‘GS’ died in 2001 leaving behind his widow, two daughters
(appellants) and two sons, including ‘AK’ – Suit for partition filed
by respondent no.1 (son of ‘AK’ ), decreed by Trial Court holding
that appellants were not entitled to any share as they were born
prior to the enactment of the 1956 Act – Appeal filed by appellants,
dismissed by High Court – Review Petition there against, also
dismissed – Held: Section 6, as amended, stipulates that on and
from the commencement of the Amendment Act, 2005, the daughter
of a coparcener shall by birth become a coparcener in her own
right in the same manner as the son – Amendment Act, 2005 confers
upon the daughter of the coparcener, same rights and liabilities in
the coparcenery properties as that of the son – In the present case,
suit for partition was filed in 2002, however, during the pendency
of the suit, s.6 was amended– Decree was passed by trial court only
in 2007 – Thus, the rights of the appellants got crystallised in the
year 2005 – In the instant case, the subject matter of the partition
suit were joint family properties, thus, in the said partition suit, share
will devolve upon the appellants as well – Since, ‘GS’ died leaving
behind appellants, two sons, and a widow, both the appellants would
be entitled to 1/5th share each in the property – Since, ‘AK’ will
have 1/5th share, it would be further divided into five shares on
partition i.e. between ‘AK’, his wife, his two daughters and son
(respondent no.1) – Thus, respondent no.1 would be entitled to 1/25th
share in the property – Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Suit – Partition suit – Preliminary Decree – Effect of, on the
rights of daughters in coparcenary property as per amended s.6 –
Held: Rights of daughters in coparcenary property as per amended
s.6 are not lost merely because a preliminary decree has been passed
in a partition suit – In partition suits, partition becomes final only
  [2018] 2 S.C.R. 553
 553
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
554
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 2 S.C.R.
on the passing of final decree – Where such situation arises, the
preliminary decree would have to be amended taking into account
the change in law by amendment of 2005 – Hindu Succession
(Amendment) Act, 2005 –  s.6.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1.1 Amendment to Section 6, Hindu Succession
Act, 1956 vide Amendment Act, 2005 clinches the issue, beyond
any pale of doubt, in favour of the appellants. This amendment
now confers upon the daughter of the coparcener as well the status
of coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son and
gives same rights and liabilities in the coparcenery properties as
she would have had if it had been son. [Para 20][564-B]
1.2 The law relating to a joint Hindu family governed by
the Mitakshara law has undergone unprecedented changes. The
said changes have been brought forward to address the growing
need to merit equal treatment to the nearest female relatives,
namely daughters of a coparcener. The section stipulates that a
daughter would be a coparcener from her birth, and would have
the same rights and liabilities as that of a son. The daughter would
hold property to which she is entitled as a coparcenary property,
which would be construed as property being capable of being
disposed of by her either by a Will or any other testamentary
disposition. These changes have been sought to be made on the
touchstone of equality, thus seeking to remove the perceived
disability and prejudice to which a daughter was subjected. The
fundamental changes brought forward about in the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956 by amending it in 2005, are perhaps a
realization of the immortal words of Roscoe Pound as appearing
in his celebrated treatise, The Ideal Element in Law, that “the
law must be stable and yet it cannot stand still. Hence all thinking
about law has struggled to reconcile the conflicting demands of
the need of stability and the need of change.” [Para 23][569-D-
G]
Prakash & Ors. v. Phulavati & Ors. (2016) 2 SCC 36
– relied on.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
555
Sadashiv Sakharam Patil v. Chandrakant Gopal Desale
2011 (5) Bom CR 726; Badrinarayan Shankar
Bhandari v. Omprakash Shankar Bhandari AIR 2014
Bom 151; Pravat Chandra Pattnaik v. Sarat Chandra
Pattnaik AIR 2008 Ori 133; Sugalabai v. Gundappa
A. Maradi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.