Back
Ganduri Koteshwaramma – Appellant
Versus
Chakiri Yanadi – Respondent
Key Points: - The 2005 Amendment Act substituted Section 6 to grant daughters coparcenary rights from 9 September 2005. (!) (!) - New Section 6 entitles a daughter to coparcenery status by birth and parity of rights with sons, with certain provisos about pre-2004 dispositions and partitions. (!) (!) - The case addresses whether appellants can avail benefits of the 2005 Amendment Act where partition shares were determined by a preliminary decree issued before 9 September 2005 and amended later. (!) (!) - A partition suit progresses from a preliminary decree to a final decree; a preliminary decree determines shares but does not finalize partition, and the suit continues for final decree. (!) - The court may modify or issue a second preliminary decree in response to changed or supervening circumstances before final decree. (!) (!) - There is a provision that partition effected before 20 December 2004 is exempt from the 2005 Amendment Act. (!) (!) - The court held that the High Court erred in not recognizing the possibility of readjustment of shares via another preliminary decree under changed circumstances post-2005 Amendment.
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, 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 t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
