In A Partition Suit, Parties Can Seek Benefit Of Amended Law Before The Passing Of Final Decree: Supreme Court

WHAT DID THE COURT SAY? 

• In Prasanta Kumar Sahoo & Ors. v Charulata Sahu & Ors., the Supreme Court of India held that if a final decree has not been passed and the case is still pending, then the parties to that case can get the benefit of the amended law. In other words, a preliminary decree in a suit for partition can be modified later if the law governing the parties to the case has been amended. 
• A Division Bench consisting of Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice J.B. Pardiwala held that in a partition suit, all the parties must give their consent for the settlement to attain legality. Consent from only a few parties is not maintainable.

WHAT IS THE CASE ABOUT? 

• In 1969, one Kumar Sahoo was survived by his three children namely, Ms. Charulata (respondent no.1), Ms. Santilata and Mr. Prafulla (appellant’s father).
• The daughters claimed their rights in the ancestral as well as the self-acquired properties of their late father. Their respective shares were granted to them by the Trial Court. 
• While an appeal against the decision of the HC was pending, Ms. Santilata and Mr. Prafulla entered into a settlement deed whereby the former relinquished her rights in the suit property to the latter in lieu of Rs. 50,000/-.
• The HC dismissed the appeal and also invalidated the settlement deed.
• Accordingly, an appeal was filed by the appellants against the impugned order and judgement of the High Court.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES: 

• The counsel for the appellants contended that the suit property was only ancestral property and that Kumar Sahoo did not possess any self-acquired property.
• The counsel for the respondents contended that the settlement deed was invalid. The three of them were legally entitled to their respective shares in the suit property so, without the consent of the respondent, the same could not be made subject to a settlement deed.

OBSERVATION OF THE COURT AND DECISION: 

• The Ld. Court placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgement in the case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma; wherein it was held that the amended Sec.6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 2005 which gave coparcenary rights to a female child was retrospective. 
• The Court further noted that if a case is pending in a Court and the law governing the parties is amended by way of legislation, then such parties can claim the benefit of the amended law.
• The Court also observed that for a settlement deed to attain legality it is a must that all the parties concerning the matter gave their consent in writing. If consent was not given by any of the parties, the deed would be considered not maintainable.
• Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

What do you think about the decision of the Court? Let us know in the comments section below!