Hindu succession act 2005

I have filed an IA in the court under ORDER 7 RULE 11 to reject the suit based on the Supreme Court final interpretation in Prakash v/s Phulavati case reported in 2015 AIR SCW 6160. According to this judgement, rights under amendment of 2005 are applicable only to living daughters of living co-parceners as on 9th September 2005, irrespective of when such daughters are born. Disposition or alienation including partitions which may have taken place before 20th December, 2004 as per law applicable prior to the said date will remain unaffected.

Now I am hearing that this judgement is also challanged in the larger banch of Supreme Court. Is it true?

What will be the next step for me to go further.   

Thanks in advance for your response. 


Contest the case.

It is already cleared that the judgment provides prospective effect. 


You mean to say that this is the final order of Supreme Court and there is no appeal filed in the larger banch.

One more thing in my case coparcener died in 1998 when Hindu Succession (Karnataka amendment) act  was applicable which excludes the married daughters prior to the commencement of the act. The lady who filed this case was married before 1994. Do I also need to prove this aspect in the court   



It is not posted that 'this is the final order of Supreme Court and there is no appeal filed in the larger banch.'


You may wait for more posts confirming if 'there is appeal filed in the larger banch.'


Sucession opens date of death.

Look carefully into applicable rules.


What is the opinion of your own counsel?



Thanks Kumar for your valuable feedback. 

Sorry to come back after so long because I was waiting for my lawyer to provide his opinion. 

It is clear that Hindu Succession (Karnataka Amendment) Act was applicable when succession was opened. According to the act, married women prior to the commencement of the act was excluded from the benefit. The lady who filed the case was married before 1994 and I have aadhar card and school leaving certificate of her elder son which has date of birth 11/4/1994 which clearly indicates that she was married before 1994.

Contention of my lawyer is that we cannot provide these documents because under Order 7 Rule 11 court will only look into the plaint. In the Plaint it is mentioned that Father died on 01/03/1998 but there is no evidence of that she was married before Hindu Succession (Karnataka Amendment) Act and had no coparsenrey rights.

What is your opinion?   


It is unalterd; Sucession opens date of death.



I have case in concern with on the judgement (16/10/2015) given by Hon`ble apex court  by Hon`ble Justice Anil R Dave on Civil application  No.7217 of 2013 in the matter of Prakash v/s phulawati.

I want to know in the similar situation for my case

1. If there is a male  coparcener in place of PHULAWATI.

2. There was a Female  coparcener (died on 30.04.1975) in place of phulawati`s father(died in 1988 )

3. There is male in place of phulawati`s  Grandmother.

It means that No.1 is son (born on 1954 & alive ) and No.2 is Mother (married in 1939 & died in 1975) and no.3 is Grandfather (demised)

If this position with what would be the final judgement ?

                > Can the Son have Right or Claim for the Agricultural  Land ?



@ Gaurav,

The query is also posted at:




Thansk kumar for informing me.

Please inform the solution for this post.


It has been discussed in other thread.

Agriculture is a state subject.

Rest discuss with a very able counsel specialzing in revenue,property, civil matters, and well versed with local laws.






Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


  Search Forum



Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query
Forensics & Evidence     |    x