According to a recent ruling by the Supreme Court, parties involved in a partition suit can avail the benefits of amended laws while the case is ongoing, as long as a final decree has not been issued. This means that the preliminary decree in a partition suit can be changed during the final decree proceedings if the law applicable to the parties has been updated. Justices A.S. Bopanna and J.B. Pardiwala also stated that a decree by consent among only some of the parties involved in a joint property partition suit is not valid, and all parties must provide written consent and signatures for a settlement to be considered legally binding. This ruling was made in the case of Prasanta Kumar Sahoo & Ors. v Charulata Sahu & Ors.
In 1969, Mr. Kumar Sahoo passed away leaving behind his three children: Ms. Charulata (daughter), Ms. Santilata (daughter), and Mr. Prafulla (son). Ms. Charulata filed a partition suit in 1980, seeking a one-third share in her deceased father’s ancestral and self-acquired properties. The Trial Court issued a preliminary decree in 1986, granting Ms. Charulata and Ms. Santilata a one-sixth share in the ancestral properties and a one-third share in the self-acquired properties of their father. However, Mr. Prafulla was awarded a four-sixth share in the ancestral properties and a one-third share in the self-acquired properties, including the mesne profits.
Also Read –
CJI DY Chandrachud said Union Ministry of Minority Affairs to engage with states that have not yet established Haj Committees
Mr. Prafulla filed an appeal before the High Court, claiming that all of his father’s properties were ancestral. During the appeal proceedings, Mr. Prafulla and Ms. Santilata entered into a Settlement Deed in 1991, with Ms. Santilata giving up her share in exchange for Rs. 50,000. Mr. Prafulla continued to litigate the issue of whether certain properties were ancestral or self-acquired in the High Court, while Ms. Charulata challenged the validity of the Settlement Deed.
In 2011, the High Court dismissed Mr. Prafulla’s appeal and declared the Settlement Deed invalid. Mr. Prafulla then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that amendments made to the Hindu Succession Act in 2005, which granted daughters equal rights to ancestral property as sons, could not be applied retroactively. He also claimed that Ms. Santilata’s rights had been extinguished by the Settlement Deed, and the property had been transferred to him.
Also Read – Supreme Court Move to Uphold Judicial Independence through Reiteration of Judge Appointments
The Supreme Court has given a verdict stating that in a partition suit where no final decree has been passed yet, the parties can request the trial court to decide the case based on the amended law. The court referred to the Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma and Ors. judgment, which stated that the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, giving coparcenary rights to daughters, would apply to cases where the male coparcener dies before the amendment in 2005. The court also stated that any legislative amendment or subsequent event that alters the rights of the parties can be taken into consideration while passing the final decree. The court invalidated a settlement deed in a partition suit that was not signed by all parties and modified the preliminary decree to give daughters a 1/3rd share in all ancestral and self-acquired properties of Late Kumar Sahoo. The court upheld the allocation of shares done by the trial court and the high court and redetermined the shares of the parties. The court stated that a decree by consent among only some of the parties cannot be maintained in a suit for partition of joint property. The court mentioned that the partition suit can be fully and completely decided only when the final decree is passed.
One Reply to “Supreme Court Verdict on Hindu Succession Act 1956 and Partition Suit: Impact of Amended Law, Settlement Deeds, and Consent of All Parties.”