$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 25^th February 2025 + CM(M) 1056/2019 & CM APPL. 31626/2019 STAY GEETA DEVI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv Versus KULDEEP SINGH & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. J. P. Singh & Mr.

Chandrakant Kumar, Advs for R-1 CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA J U D G M E N T ( ORAL)

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

1. Petitioner challenges the order dated 02.07.2019, passed by the learned District Judge, Dwarka Court Complex, in case bearing No. CS DJ/113/2018, titled “Kuldeep Singh Vs. Jagat Singh & Ors.”, whereby, the learned court dismissed three separate applications filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and Section 340 Cr. PC.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts are that petitioner is the daughter and one of the legal heirs of late Sh. Bishan CM (M) 1056/2019 Page 1 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Singh. Respondent No. 1 filed a suit for partition, possession etc., without impleading the petitioner herein.

3. In May 2019, petitioner came to know about the pendency of the suit. Thereupon, she filed the aforesaid three applications including application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment.

4. Vide impugned order dated 02.07.2019, trial court dismissed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. The applications under Order 9 Rule 13 and under Section 340 Cr. PC were also dismissed on account of the reason that the same were not maintainable as the petitioner was not a party to the petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has got a legal right in the estate left behind by her late father and therefore is a necessary party to the suit.

6. A perusal of the record shows that late Sh. Bishan Singh, father of the parties, expired on 17.08.2005. A preliminary decree has already been passed in favour of respondent No. 1 on 10.05.2019.

7. Learned trial court while placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Prakash & Ors. Vs. Phulavati & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 7217 of 2023, decided on 16.10.2025, was of the view that petitioner is not entitled to claim any share in the estate left behind by late Sh. Bishan Singh because of the reason that Bishan Singh had expired on 17.08.2005 i.e. before the commencement of CM (M) 1056/2019 Page 2 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed amendment in the Hindu Succession Act, which came into force on

09.09.2005.

8. In the case of Prakash & Ors. (supra), the Supreme Court held that the amended Section 6 was not retrospective in operation and would apply when the both the coparcener and his daughter were alive on the date of commencement of the Amendment Act i.e. 09.09.2005.

9. In Danamma Vs. Amar, (2018) 3 SCC 343, Supreme Court held that the amended provisions of Section 6 conferred full rights upon the daughter coparcener. The Court observed that any coparcener, including a daughter, could claim a partition in the coparcenary property. In that case, one G died in the year 2001, leaving behind two daughters, two sons and a widow. The coparcener’s father was not alive when the substituted provision of Section 6 came into force. The daughters, sons and the widow were given 1/5^th share apiece.

10. In view of the conflicting verdicts rendered by the two Division Benches of the Supreme Court, the question regarding interpretation of Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, was referred to a larger Bench in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma & Ors. (2020) 9 SCC 1

11. The Apex Court while considering the provisions of Section 6, held that discrimination with the daughter has been done away with CM (M) 1056/2019 Page 3 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed and they have been provided equal treatment in the matter of inheritance with Mitakshara coparcenary and therefore Section 6 of the Hindu Succession At, 1956 confers status of coparcener on the daughter whether before or after the amendmen