Daughters' coparcenary rights under amended Hindu succession law apply until partition is finally completed, allowing shares to be revised.

A daughter's coparcenary rights under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 apply where no partition was completed before the statutory cutoff date. A preliminary decree in a partition suit does not amount to final partition; the suit remains open until a final decree and division by metes and bounds. On supervening legal change before final decree, the court may modify the preliminary decree or pass another preliminary decree to reflect the altered rights. The amended law was applied liberally, and the daughters were held entitled to equal shares because no completed partition had taken place before 20 December 2004.

---

---

Issues: Whether daughters were entitled to the benefit of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 in a partition suit where only a preliminary decree had been passed and no final decree or completed partition had taken place, and whether the preliminary decree could be modified to reflect the changed statutory rights.

Analysis: The substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 conferred on a daughter of a coparcener the same rights and liabilities as a son, with effect from 9 September 2005, subject only to the proviso and the exception for partitions effected before 20 December 2004. A partition is not complete merely because shares are declared in a preliminary decree; the suit continues until a final decree is passed and the property is divided by metes and bounds. Where supervening events occur before the final decree, the court has power to amend the preliminary decree or pass another preliminary decree so that the rights of the parties are correctly determined. The earlier authorities recognised that beneficial amendments conferring rights on daughters must receive liberal effect and cannot be defeated by an incomplete partition.

Conclusion: The daughters were entitled to claim equal shares under the 2005 amendment, since no completed partition had taken place before the relevant cutoff date, and the preliminary decree could validly be reworked before final decree.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's view was erroneous, and the trial court's order granting re-allotment of shares to the appellants was restored, enabling preparation of the final decree in accordance with that order.

Ratio Decidendi: In a partition suit, a preliminary decree does not effect completed partition; until the final decree, the court may alter shares to reflect intervening legal changes, and daughters obtain the benefit of Section 6 as amended if no partition was effected before 20 December 2004.

---