The Joint Family Abolition Act does not override amendments to the Hindu Succession Act, as clarified by the Supreme Court.

EASWARAN S., J -------------------------------------

R.S.A No.543 of 2025 ------------------------------------

Dated this the 16^th day of December, 2025 JUDGMENT This appeal arises out of the judgment rendered by the 1^st Additional Sub Court, Kozhikode in O.S.No.83 of 2021, which was reversed by the Additional District Court - II, Kozhikode in A.S.No.2o of 2024.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

The appellants filed the suit for partition contending that item No.1 of plaint B schedule property is a Tharavad property obtained by one Raman in the year 1913. After the death of Raman, Moothoran, the son of Raman, obtained the property as per document No.1163 of 1928. Moothoran, along with his brother Sankaran, partitioned the property in the year 1970 as per document No.2106 of 1970. Item No.2 was allotted to Sankaran and his family. The plaintiffs and defendants are the legal heirs of the Sankaran. Sankaran died in the year 1981. During his life time, Sankaran had executed a settlement deed by transferring 15 cents in favour of his son. The defendants resisted the plaintiffs contending that the plaintiffs had no right over the property since no joint family system existed after 1976. However, subsequent documents were admitted. It is also contended that the son of Sankaran, Ramachandran, died and thereafter the defendants are entitled to succeed to the property. On behalf of plaintiffs Exts.A1 to A4 documents were produced. On behalf of defendants Exts.B1 to B10 were produced. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs whereas first defendant was examined as DW1. The trial Court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, found that, the plaint schedule property except the property mentioned in document No.623 of 2003 and Ext.B1 is partible and accordingly passed a preliminary decree for dividing 54 cents into four equal shares with the plaintiffs taking ¹/ shares each. Aggrieved, the defendants preferred A.S.No.20 of 2024 before the Additional District Court - II, Kozhikode and by judgment dated 24.02.2025, the first appellate court reversed the findings and held that item No.1 of plaint B schedule property was liable to be partitioned into eight(8) equal shares and the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/8 shares each and defendants are jointly entitled for 5/8 shares. The preliminary decree as regards item No.2 was confirmed. The plaintiffs aggrieved to the extend of the modification of judgment and decree as done by the first appellate court has come up in the present appeal.

3. Heard Smt.R.Bindu Sasthamangalam, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri.Achuth Kylas learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. On 11.11.2025 this Court framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration:

“1. Whether the finding of the appellate court that in view of the dictum laid down by this Hon’ble Court in Babu Vs. Ayillalath Aruna Priya [2012 4 KHC 495] that after 01.12.1976 there is no coparcenary property in existence by reason of the promulgation of Joint Family Abolitioin Act 1976 is legal and correct?

2. Whether the finding of the appellate court that the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex in Vineetha Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma and others [2020(4) KHC 513 SC] has no application in the facts and circumstances of the case is legal and proper?

3. Whether the Joint Family Abolition Act 1976 will override the amendment brought in Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act in view of the fact that the subsequent central enactment will prevail over the state enactment by virtue of operation of the doctrime of repugnancy enunciated in Article 254 of the Constitution of India?

4. Whether the finding of the appellate court that item No. 1 of plaint B Schedule property is liable to be partitioned into 8 equal shares and the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/8th shares each is in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act 1956?”

5. Smt.R.Bindu Sast