Ganduri Koteshwaramma vs Chakiri Yanadi case held that the rights of daughters in coparcenary property according to the revised Section 6 are not lost simply because a preliminary decree has been passed in a partition suit.
FACTS OF GANDURI KOTESHWARAMMA CASE:
- The appellants and the respondents are kin being little girls and children of Chakiri Venkata Swamy.
- The 1st respondent (plaintiff) documented a suit for partition in the court of Senior Civil Judge, Ongole impleading his dad Chakiri Venkata Swamy (first litigant), his sibling Chakiri Anji Babu (second litigant), and his two sisters – the current appellants – as third and fourth litigant separately. Regarding timetable properties ‘A’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ – coparcenary property – the plaintiff asserted that he, the first litigant, and the second respondent have 1/third offer each.
- As respects plan property ‘B’- – as the property had a place with his mom – he asserted that everyone gathering has a 1/5th equivalent offer.
- The trial court, on hearing the gatherings, by its request dated June 15, 2009, permitted the use of the current appellants (third and fourth litigant) and held that they were entitled to re-distribution of shares in the preliminary decree, i.e., they are qualified for 1/fourth offer each and separate belonging in plan properties ‘A’, ‘C’ and ‘D’.
ISSUES:
- Regardless of whether the preliminary decree for partition and ownership of suit properties passed by the court prior to coming into power of Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as corrected by Amendment Act, 2005 and in which little girls were parties, could be changed prior to the passing of final decree to get it congruity with the revised Section 6 of the Act?
RATIO & DECISION:
Justice R.M. Lodha delivered the judgment.
- A Hindu lady or young lady will have equivalent property rights alongside other male family members for any partition made in intestate succession after September 2005. Under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, the girls are qualified for equivalent legacy rights alongside other male kin, which was not accessible to them preceding the amendment.
- The apex court said the female inheritors would have the succession rights and similar liabilities affixed on the property alongside the male individuals.
- As per the apex court, the right gathered to a girl in the property of a joint Hindu family administered by the Mitakshara Law, by temperance of the 2005 Amendment Act, is outright, besides in specific situations.
- The exceptions are (I) where the disposition or distance, including any partition, has occurred before December 20, 2004; and (ii) where the testamentary disposition of property has been made before December 20, 2004.
CONCLUSION:
- Section 6 of the Act, as changed, specifies that on and from the initiation of the amended Act, 2005, the little girl of a coparcener will by birth become a coparcener by her own doing in a similar way as the child.
- It is clear that the status presented upon children under the old section and the old Hindu Law was to regard them as coparceners since birth.
- The changed arrangement presently legally perceives the rights of coparceners of girls too since birth.
- The Section uses the words in a similar way as the child. It ought to in this way be clear that both it has given the children and the girls of a coparcener the right to become coparceners by birth.
- It is the very factum of birth in a coparcenary that makes the coparcenary, hence the children and little girls of a coparcener become coparceners by the legitimacy of birth.
Found Ganduri Koteshwaramma vs Chakiri Yanadi Case summary useful? We have a bunch of useful topics from family law that will help you in your preparation here >>> FAMILY LAW
Check out our YouTube Channel for free legal videos >>> LAW PLANET YT
