G. RADHAKRISHNA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Subordinate judge, Mahbubnagar, in LA. No. 82 of 1988 in O. S. No. 42 of 1972 filed by the plaintiff for passing a final decree in terms of preliminary decree.

( 2 ) THE facts in brief that led to the filing of an application by the plaintiff for passing a preliminary decree in the partition suit are as follows:

( 3 ) THE plaintiff filed the suit for partition and the Court passed a preliminary decree on 26-12-1973 declaring that he is entitled to l/3rd share in the plaint A,c and D schedule properties. The first defendant filed an appeal against that preliminary decree. The High Court confirmed the findings of the trial Court on 15-10-1984 holding that the plaintiff, the 4th defendant and the first defendant are entitled to 1/3rd share each and also directed the trial Court while passing a final decree to make appropriate provision for maintenance and marriage expenses of defendants 5 to 9 and maintenance of third defendant out of totality of joint family properties shall be borne equally by each of the plaintiff, 4th defendant and first defendant. The 10th defendant died long back when the appeal was pending. The marriage of the 5th defendant was performed subsequently with the expenses of the plaintiff.

( 4 ) THE first defendant filed a counter slating that the marriage of the 5th defendant was performed not with the expenses of the plaintiff but with his expenses and he also gifted 30 tolas of gold to the 5th defendant at the time of her marriage. He also stated that the plaint A,c and D schedule properties ara held to be ancestral properties by the Court and after the insertion of Sections 29-A, 29-B and 29-C of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956, defendants 6 to 9 being unmarried daughters are also entitled for a share on par with their brothers, since the properties have not been divided so far. He also stated that the suit A, C and D schedule properties have to be divided in 7 parts.

( 5 ) THE trial Court found that a preliminary decree was passed and an appeal was also preferred against the preliminary decree and that appeal was also dismissed confirming the preliminary decree passed by the trial court and in that situation the contention of the defendants that the properties have not yet been divided and so the unmarried daughters are also entitled to the share is not tenable.

( 6 ) THE suit was filed for partition in 1972 and a preliminary decree was passed in 1973 declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share. The lower Court came to the conclusion that when a preliminary decree was passed declaring the shares of the parties, it is not open to the unmarried daughters to claim shares in those properties by virtue of the amended provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

( 7 ) THE contention that has been raised on behalf of the daughters who are respondents 6 to 9 in the lower Court is that the Court below failed to take into consideration the amended provisions of the Hindu Succession act correctly. The lower Court also failed to take note that it is a settled law that a suit for partition of the joint family properties should be deemed to be pending till a final decree is passed and merely because a preliminary decree was passed before the Hindu Succession (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) act, 1986 (XIII of 1986) came into force on 5-9-1985 the rights of the unmarried daughters conferred under the said Act cannot be said to be unenforceable.

( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff contended that as the preliminary decree has already been passed, the severence has already been taken place by virtue of the passing of the decree and the rights have been declared and the only alternative that is left for the Court is to implement the preliminary decree passed by it which has been confirmed by the High Court also.

( 9 ) ON September 24, 1985 the Andhra Pradesh Legislature has adopted a Bill to confer equal right

Click Here to Read the rest of this document