2011 (10) TMI 709 - SC - Indian Laws

Daughters' inheritance rights in coparcenary property upheld by Supreme Court, ensuring gender equality

The Supreme Court held that the appellants, daughters in a sibling dispute over coparcenary properties, were entitled to benefits under the Hindu ... Benefits of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 availability to the appellants - Held that:- Section 97 of C. P.C. that provides that where any party aggrieved by a preliminary decree passed after the commencement of the Code does not appeal from such decree, he shall be precluded from disputing its correctness in any appeal which may be preferred from the final decree does not create any hindrance or obstruction in the power of the court to modify, amend or alter the preliminary decree or pass another preliminary decree if the changed circumstances so require. It is true that final decree is always required to be in conformity with the preliminary decree but that does not mean that a preliminary decree, before the final decree is passed, cannot be altered or amended or modified by the trial court in the event of changed or supervening circumstances even if no appeal has been preferred from such preliminary decree. The view of the High Court is against law and the decisions of this Court in Phoolchand1 and S.Sai Reddy2. We accordingly allow this appeal; set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restore the order of the trial court dated June 15, 2009. The trial court shall now proceed for the preparation of the final decree in terms of its order dated June 15, 2009. Issues Involved:1. Applicability of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 to the appellants.2. Entitlement of daughters to coparcenary property under the amended Act.3. Impact of preliminary and final decrees on the rights of the parties.4. Legal interpretation of partition and its completion.Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005:The core issue is whether the benefits of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (2005 Amendment Act) are available to the appellants. The appellants and respondents are siblings, and the dispute pertains to the partition of coparcenary properties. The trial court initially declared the plaintiff entitled to a 1/3rd share in certain properties and a 1/4th share in others. However, the 2005 Amendment Act, which came into force during the proceedings, substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (1956 Act), granting daughters the same rights as sons in coparcenary property.2. Entitlement of Daughters to Coparcenary Property:The 2005 Amendment Act aimed to eliminate gender discrimination by including daughters as coparceners. The new Section 6 explicitly states that daughters shall have the same rights and liabilities in coparcenary property as sons. This legislative change was intended to render social justice to women, ensuring parity in inheritance rights. The appellants, being daughters, claimed their share in the coparcenary property based on this amendment. The trial court allowed their application, granting them 1/4th share each in the disputed properties.3. Impact of Preliminary and Final Decrees:A significant point of contention was whether the preliminary decree passed before the 2005 Amendment Act deprived the appellants of their rights under the new law. The preliminary decree had determined the shares of the parties but the final decree had not yet been passed. The Supreme Court noted that a preliminary decree only determines the rights and interests of the parties and does not dispose of the suit. The suit continues until the final decree is passed, and any supervening events necessitating a change in shares must be considered. The Court cited precedents affirming that more than one preliminary decree can be passed if circumstances change, and shares can be re-determined accordingly.4. Legal Interpretation of Partition and Its Completion:The Court emphasized that partition in a joint Hindu family can be effected by various modes, including a registered instrument or a decree of the court. In this case, no partition had been effected before December 20, 2004, by either mode. The preliminary decree had not resulted in a final partition by metes and bounds. The Court reiterated that unless a partition is completed in all respects, the shares of the parties remain liable to change due to intervening events. The Court referenced the case of S. Sai Reddy vs. S. Narayana Reddy, where it was held that unmarried daughters could claim their share in the property after an amendment in the law, even if a preliminary decree had been passed.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the appellants were entitled to the benefits of the 2005 Amendment Act. The High Court's decision to set aside the trial court's order was erroneous, as it failed to recognize the legal provisions allowing modification of preliminary decrees in light of supervening circumstances. The appeal was allowed, and the trial court's order granting the appellants 1/4th share each in the coparcenary properties was restored. The trial court was directed to proceed with the preparation of the final decree accordingly.