Andhra High Court
Damalanka Gangaraju And Ors. vs Nandipati Vijaya Lakshmi And Ors. on 21/3/2007
JUDGMENT
D. Appa Rao, J.
1. This is an appeal preferred by the Defendants 1, 2 and 6 against
granting of a Preliminary Decree for partition in the suit filed in
O.S. No. 7 of 1996, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge,
Pithapuram.
1. Even earlier the Supreme Court in Karunanidhi v. Union of India
, held that by Clause (2) of Article 246, concurrent
power is conferred upon both the Union and State Legislatures to
legislate with respect to the subjects included in List-Ill. Hence if
both the Parliament and a State legislature make laws relating to the
same concurrent subject, a question of conflict arises between the two
enactments. The conflict is solved by Article 254(1) by providing that
in such a case the State Law shall be void to the extent it is
repugnant to or inconsistent with the Central Act.
42. Undoubtedly the Central enactment prevails over the State Act and
the latter is deemed to have repealed. In case of overlappings of a
matter as between them, predominance has to be given to the Union
legislation.
43. Therefore, after 9.9.2005, all the daughters have to be treated as
coparceners entitled to equal shares, irrespective of the fact whether
they are majors or minors or their marriages were performed before
5.9.1985 or subsequent to 5.9.1985. In view of the subsequent events,
viz., the amendment to Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, I hold that
the plaintiff is entitled to 1/6th share instead of 1/3rd share in the
plaint schedule properties including property covered under Exs.B4 and
B5. However, the land covered under Ex.B3 sale deed has to be excluded
from partition. The plaintiff is entitled to 1/6th share in the plaint
A-schedule properties as well as B-schedule house.
