O R D E R

The Review Petition is filed on two grounds – (i)

The observation of this Court in paragraph 10 of the judgment that, the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, is only prospective in operation, is not correct; (ii) Notional partitions prior to the amendment are not saved from the applicability of the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act . The Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act , 1975, is having the effect of a notional partition which is not saved under the proviso to (1), nor is the benefit of (5) of the , 1956 as amended, attracted, is the contention.

2. At paragraph 10 of the judgment sought to be reviewed, this Court held that :-

R.P. No.954 of 2023 in R.F.A. No.873 of 2013 “The said contention has no force in the light ofBabu v. Ayillalath Arunapriya, 2012 (4) KLT 487, wherein this Court held that the amendment is only prospective in operation.”

In Babu’s case(supra) this Court held, “The legislature did not specifically make the provisions retrospective. A careful reading of sub- sections (1) and (5) of Section 6 of the said Act indicates that the Act is prospective.” As contended by the learned counsel it could possibly be argued as being