PRAKASH & ORS. versus PHULAVATI & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 12 S.C.R. 579 · Decided: 16-10-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIL R. DAVE · Disposal: Disposed off

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 12 S.C.R. 579 
PRAKASH & ORS. 
v. 
PHULAVATI & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.7217 of2013) 
OCTOBER 16, 2015 
[ANIL R. DAVE AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] 
Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005: 
A 
B 
ss. 6(1 ), 6(3), 6(5) -
Whether the Act will have c 
retrospective operation - Held: No - The legislature has. 
expressly made the Amendment applicable on and from its. 
commencement. 
s. 6(1 ), (5), proviso - Right of daughter of coparcener in 
coparcenery properties - Held: Rights under the amendment D 
are applicable to Jiving daughters of living coparceners as 
on 9th September, 2005 irrespective of when such daughters 
are born - Proviso to s. 6(1) and s. 6(5) clearly intend to 
exclude the transactions referred to therein which may have 
taken place prior to 2Qth December, 2004 on which date the E 
Bill was introduced - Therefore, disposition or alienation 
including partitions which may have taken place before 20th. 
December, 2004 as per law applicable prior to the said date 
to remain unaffected. 
Interpretation of statutes: 
Harmonious construction - Held: Normal rule is to read 
the words of a statute in ordinary sense - In case of apparent 
conflict, harmonious meaning to advance the object and 
F 
intention of legislature has to be given. 
G 
Proviso - Significance of - Held: Normal rule is that a 
proviso excepts something out of the enactment which would 
otherwise be within the purview of the enactment but if the 
text, context or purpose so require a different rule may apply. 
H 
579 
580 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 
Explanation - Significance of- Held: Is to explain the 
meaning of words of the section but if the language or purpose 
so require, the explanation can be so interpreted. 
Prospective operation: 
Held: An amendment of a substantive provision is 
always prospective unless either expressly or by necessary 
intendment it is retrospective - Even a social legislation 
cannot be given retrospective effect unless so provided for 
or so intended by the legislature. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The text of the amendment itself clearly 
provides that the right conferred on a 'daughter of a 
coparcener' is 'on and from the commencement of Hindu 
D Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005'. Section 6(3) talks 
of death after the amendment for its applicability. In view 
of plain language of the statute, there· is no scope for a 
different interpretation than the one suggested by the 
text of the amendment. An amendment of a substantive 
E provision is always prospective unless either expressly 
or by necessary intendment it is retrospective. In the 
present case, there is neither any express provision for . 
giving retrospective effect to the amended provision nor 
necessary intendment to. that effect. Requirement of 
F partition being registered can have no applicat!on to 
statutory notional partition on opening of succession as 
per unamended provision, having regard to nature of 
such partition which is by operation of law. [Para 17] 
G [595-F-H; 596-A-B] . 
H 
2. Contention of the respondents that the 
Amendment should be read as retrospective being a 
piece of social legislation cannot be accepted. Even a 
social legislation cannot be given retrospective effect 
PRAKASH & ORS. v. PHULAVATI & ORS. 
58 'l 
unless so provided for or so intended by the legislature. A 
In the present case, the legislature has expressly made 
the Amendment applicable on and from its 
commencement and only if death of the coparcener in 
question is after the amendment. Thus, no other 
interpretation is possible in view of express language of B 
the statute. The proviso keeping dispositions or 
alienations or partitions prior to 20th December, 2004 
unaffected can also not lead to the inference that the 
daughter could be a coparcener prior to the 
commencement of the Act. The proviso only means that C 
the transactions not covered thereby will not affect the 
extent of coparcenary property which may be available 
when the main provision is applicable. Similarly, 
Explanation. has to be read harmoniously with the 0 
substantive provision of Section 6(5) by being limited to 
a transaction of partition effected after 20th December, 
2004. Notional partition, by its very nature, is not covered 
either under proviso or under sub-section 5 or under the 
Explanation. [Para 18] [596-C-G] 
E 
· 3. Interpretation of a provision depends on the text 
and the context. Normal rule is to read the words of a

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