The retrospective operation of the 2005 amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which conferred coparcenary rights on daughters in Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs), was upheld by the Bombay High Court. The court held that the amendment was intended to remove gender discrimination and promote equality, and that making it prospective would defeat this objective.

1. Heard Mr. A.V.Anturkar, Mr. R.S.Apte, learned senior counsel, Mr. G.S.Godbole, Mr. Vaibhav Patankar, Mr. P.P.Kulkarni, Mr. G.N.Salunkhe, Mr. V.S.Talkute, Mr. Sandeep Salunkhe, Mr. Abhijit Kulkarni, learned counsel for the appellants in all Appeals and Mr. P.B.Shah, Mr. Pramod Kathane, Mr. T.D.Deshmukh, Mr. N.J.Patil, Mr. N.B.Khaire, Mr. Pratap M. Nimbalkar, Mr. M.M.Mahajan, Mr. Pankaj Shinde, Mr. G.M.Joshi, Mr. Ravindra Pachundkar, Mr. S.C.Wakankar, learned counsel for the respondents in all Appeals and Mr. Vithaldas S. Bhandari, respondent no.3 in-person in S.A.No.566 of 2011, at length.

2. The question whether Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short 'Principal Act') as amended by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (for short 'Amendment Act') is prospective or retrospective in operation, falls for consideration. Some of the learned counsel submitted that the said section is retrospective in operation while other learned counsel submitted that it is prospective in operation.

3. Mr. Anturkar submitted that the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vaishali Satish Ganorkar and Ors Vs. Satish Keshavrao Ganorkar and Ors. 2012(5) Bom C.R. 210 requires to be referred to a larger Bench as the said decision does not lay down correct Law. He submitted that the decision of this Court in the case of Vaishali Ganorkar cannot be said to be per incurium of the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ganduri Koteshwaramma and Ors Vs. Chakari Yanadi and Anr., (2011) 9 SCC 788. The issue involved in Ganduri Koteshwaramma is entirely different from the issue involved in Vaishali Ganorkar. The issue in Ganduri Koteshwaramma was that after the preliminary decree was passed and before passing of the final decree, if any supervening circumstance has taken place (such as variation of the share necessitated on account of death of any coparcener, or on birth of any coparcener, or on account of the change in the law) then whether without requiring, the party who would be benefited by such change to file the appeal against the preliminary decree, can it be said that while passing the final decree cognizance is required to be taken, of such changes and consequentially whether there has to be variation in the shares allotted or is it necessary that an appeal has to be filed and without filing of the appeal no cognizance can be taken of such changes. As against this, the issue involved in Vaishali Ganorkar was that in case of a daughter, who is born before 9th Sept 2005 whether if her father, is alive on and after 9th September 2005 and therefore the succession has not opened, can it be said that until the succession opens on account of the demise of her father, no right in the coparcenary property “devolved upon her”.

4. Mr.Anturkar submitted that the decisions of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Babu Dagadu Awari Vs Baby w/o Namdeo Lagad and others., Civil Revision Application No.47 of 2013 decided on 24th March, 2013 as also of the another learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Krishna Foundation Malkapur Vs Puja Jaywant Shinde and ors., Second Appeal No.721 of 2011 decided on 16th April, 2012 have been rendered contrary to the binding decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vaishali Ganorkar. The decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vaishali Ganorkar is binding on the learned Single Judge of this Court. He submitted that the learned Single Judge has to follow the decision of a larger Bench. However, if the learned Single Judge is inclined to take a different view, he has to refer the matter to a larger Bench. If there is any direct judgment of the Apex Court which is operating in the field either before or after that judgment of the High Court, then to follow the Supreme Court Judgment and to record that he is not following the decision of the larger Bench because the field is now covered by the Apex Court Judgment.

5. M