1. Conflict of opinion between Division Bench judgments regarding the interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 2000
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.
LOKAMANI . & ORS. - Petitioners
Vs.
MAHADEVAMMA & ORS. - Respondents
Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 684/2016
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 07-09-2015 in RFA No. 58/2014 passed by the High Court Of Karnataka At Bengaluru)
Decided On : 07-12-2018
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Shanth Kumar Mahale, Adv., Mr. Abdul R., Adv., Mr. Rajesh Mahale, AOR
For the Petitioners: Mr. Shanth Kumar Mahale, Adv., Mr. Abdul R., Adv., Mr. Rajesh Mahale, AOR
Conflict of opinion on the interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 requires the matter to be heard by a Bench of three Judges.
Headnote:
Conflict of opinion - Interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - The court directs the matter to be heard by a Bench of three Judges.
Fact of the Case:
Conflict of opinion between two Division Bench Judgments in the Court regarding the interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005.
Finding of the Court:
The matter has to be heard by a Bench of three Judges due to the conflict of opinion.
Issues: Conflict of opinion on the interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Ratio Decidendi: In view of the conflict of opinion, the matter has to be heard by a Bench of three Judges.
Final Decision: The Registry is directed to place the matter before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for the constitution of the Bench.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Submission that Order VI Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 requires referral to the Chief Justice for constitution of a larger bench. (Para 2 )
3. Conflict between two Division Bench judgments necessitates the matter being heard by a three-judge bench. (Para 1 , 2 )
4. Conflicting interpretations of a statute by Division Benches require referral to a larger bench for resolution. (Para 1 , 2 )
5. Registry directed to place the matter before the Chief Justice for the constitution of a three-judge bench. (Para 3 )
6. What is the procedure for resolving a conflict of opinion between two Division Bench judgments?
The matter must be heard by a three-judge bench, and the Registry is directed to place the matter before the Chief Justice for the constitution of the bench in accordance with the Supreme Court Rules. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
ORDER :
1. There is a conflict of opinion of two Division Bench Judgments in this Court i.e. Prakash vs. Phulavati, (2016) 2 SCC 36 and Danamma @ Suman Surpur vs. Amar, (2018) 3 SCC 343 with regard to interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005.
2. In view thereof, this matter has to be heard by a Bench of three Judge. Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to Order VI Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 as per which the matter is to be referred to Hon'ble the Chief Justice and it is for Hon'ble the Chief Justice to constitute a Bench for hearing the matter.
3. We accordingly direct the Registry to place the matter before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constitution of the Bench.
