SC: Hindu woman entitled to equal property rights
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Bench: R.M.Lodha and Jagdish Singh Khehar, JJ
Date of Judgment: 12th October, 2011
Ganduri Koteshwaramma and another ----- Appellants
Vs.
Chakiri Yanadi and another ----- Respondents
Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Sec.6 – The new Section 6 provides for parity of rights in the coparcenary property among male and female members of a joint Hindu family on and from September 9, 2005. The Legislature has now conferred substantive right in favour of the daughters. According to the new Section 6, the daughter of a coparcener becomes a coparcener by birth in her own rights and liabilities in the same manner as the son. The declaration in Section 6 that the daughter of the coparcener shall have same rights and liabilities in the coparcenary property as she would have been a son is unambiguous and unequivocal. Thus, on and from September 9, 2005, the daughter is entitled to a share in the ancestral property and is a coparcener as if she had been a son. (Para 14)
CPC, Sec.97 and O.20, R.18 – The court has always power to revise the preliminary decree or pass another preliminary decree if the situation in the changed circumstances so demand. A suit for partition continues after the passing of the preliminary decree and the proceedings in the suit get extinguished only on passing of the final decree. It is not correct statement of law that once a preliminary decree has been passed, it is not capable of modification. It needs no emphasis that the rights of the parties in a partition suit should be settled once for all in that suit alone and no other proceedings. (Para 20)
CPC, Sec.97 and O.20, R.18 – 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. (Para 21)
CPC, Sec.97 and O.20, R.18 – 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. (Para 22)
Read FULL Judgment at: https://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1103994/
Also read the related stories in THE HINDU as follows:
Hindu woman entitled to equal property rights: Supreme Court
PTI
NEW DELHI, October 13, 2011
A Hindu woman or girl will have equal property rights along with other male relatives for any partition made in intestate succession after September 2005, the Supreme Court has ruled.
A bench of justices R. M. Lodha and Jagdish Singh Khehar in a judgment said that under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, the daughters are entitled to equal inheritance rights along with other male siblings, which was not available to them prior to the amendment.
The apex court said the female inheritors would not only have the succession rights but also the same liabilities fastened on the property along with the male members.
"The new Section 6 provides for parity of rights in the coparcenary property among male and female members of a joint Hindu family on and from September 9, 2005. The legislature has now conferred substantive right in favour of the daughters.
"According to the new Section 6, the daughter of a coparcener becomes a coparcener by birth in her own rights and liabilities in the same manner as the son. The declaration in Section 6 that the daughter of the coparcener shall have same rights and liabilities in the coparcenary property as she would have been a son is unambiguous and unequivocal,"Justice Lodha, writing the judgment, said.
The term coparcener refers to the equal inheritance right of a person in a property.
The apex court passed the ruling while upholding the appeal filed by Ganduri Koteshwaramma, daughter of late Chakiri Venkata Swamy, challenging the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision not to recognise equal property rights of women along with their male siblings.
Courtesy_
Read FULL Judgment taken from https://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1103994/
Ganduri Koteshwaramma & Anr. vs Chakiri Yanadi & Anr. on 12 October, 2011
Author: R Lodha
Bench: R.M. Lodha, Jagdish Singh Khehar
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8538 OF 2011
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 9586 of 2010)
Ganduri Koteshwaramma & Anr. .... Appellants Versus
Chakiri Yanadi & Anr. ....Respondents JUDGMENT
R.M. Lodha, J.
Leave granted.
2. The question that arises in this appeal, by special leave, is: whether the benefits of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 are available to the appellants.
3. The appellants and the respondents are siblings being daughters and sons of Chakiri Venkata Swamy. The 1 st respondent (plaintiff) filed a suit for partition in the court of Senior Civil Judge, 1
Ongole impleading his father Chakiri Venkata Swamy (1st defendant), his brother Chakiri Anji Babu (2nd defendant) and his two sisters - the present appellants - as 3rd and 4th defendant respectively. In respect of schedule properties `A', `C' and `D' - coparcenary property - the plaintiff claimed that he, 1st defendant and 2nd defendant have 1/3rd share each. As regards schedule property `B'--as the property belonged to his mother--he claimed that all the parties have 1/5th equal share.
4. The 1st defendant died in 1993 during the pendency of the suit.
5. The trial court vide its judgment and preliminary decree dated March 19, 1999 declared that plaintiff was entitled to 1/3 rd share in the schedule `A', `C' and `D' properties and further entitled to 1/4th share in the 1/3rd share left by the 1st defendant. As regards schedule property `B' the plaintiff was declared to be entitled to 1/5 th share. The controversy in the present appeal does not relate to schedule `B' property and is confined to schedule `A', `C' and `D' properties. The trial court ordered for separate enquiry as regards mesne profits.
6. The above preliminary decree was amended on September 27, 2003 declaring that plaintiff was entitled to equal 2
