TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether Sections 3 and 4 of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 are repugnant to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended in 2005; (ii) whether the amended Section 6 confers coparcenary rights on daughters in the State of Kerala notwithstanding the State enactment and prior views taking a contrary position; (iii) whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a partition share in the plaint schedule property.
Issue (i): Whether Sections 3 and 4 of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 are repugnant to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended in 2005.
Analysis: The State Act denies a right by birth and proceeds on a deemed partition, whereas the amended Section 6 confers on a daughter the status of coparcener by birth and recognises only registered partition deeds or court decrees as valid partitions for the purposes of the saving clause. The two enactments operate on the same field in respect of joint family and succession and cannot be reconciled. The earlier presidential assent to the State Act does not preserve it against a later Central amendment occupying the field.
Conclusion: The provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the State Act are repugnant to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended in 2005 and have no effect to the extent of the inconsistency.
Issue (ii): Whether the amended Section 6 confers coparcenary rights on daughters in the State of Kerala notwithstanding the State enactment and prior views taking a contrary position.
Analysis: The amended Section 6 treats the daughter of a coparcener as a coparcener by birth with the same rights and liabilities as a son, subject to the statutory savings. The decision in Vineeta Sharma was applied to hold that the right is by birth and is not dependent on the father being alive on the commencement date. Earlier single-judge decisions treating the Kerala State Act as extinguishing coparcenary rights were held to be no longer good law.
Conclusion: Daughters are entitled to coparcenary rights and equal share in the joint family property in Kerala, subject to the statutory exceptions in Section 6(5).
Issue (iii): Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a partition share in the plaint schedule property.
Analysis: On the factual matrix, the property continued to retain its character as joint family property and the argument that the 1st defendant became the absolute owner so as to validate a testamentary disposition over the whole property was rejected. The court held that there is no concept of a single coparcener defeating the daughters' claim in the manner urged, and that the preliminary decree should reflect the daughters' statutory entitlement.
Conclusion: The plaintiffs were entitled to partition and equal share along with the son in the plaint schedule property.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the contrary judgments were set aside, and a preliminary decree for partition was passed in favour of the plaintiffs with costs.
Ratio Decidendi: A later Central amendment conferring coparcenary rights on daughters prevails over a repugnant State law in the concurrent field, and daughters are entitled to claim equal coparcenary shares subject only to the statutory savings attached to prior partitions and dispositions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
