CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4068 OF 2019 PADMAVATHY … APPELLANT VERSUS THAMARAVARDHINI & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition decreed by the Trial Court granting 1/6^th share to all the coparceners but dismissed by the first appellate Court allowing the appeal which is confirmed by the High Court. In the facts of the case, the effect of applicability of Hindu Succession Act as well as its amendment is a corner stone of the midstream of the dispute.

2. It is urged that the issue was brought before a three Judges Bench because of conflicting judgments in the case of Prakash v. Phulavati, [IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and Danamma @ Suman Surpur v. Amar, [Gulsh2an Kumar Arora(2018) 3 SCC 343]. The said issue was decided by this Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Ors., [Reaso3n: (2020) 9 SCC 1]. In the said case, this Court

Signa1ture Not Verified(2016) 2 SCC 36

Date: 2025.11.04 has considered the spirit of uncodified Hindu Law as well of the codified Hindu Law. The Court has further discussed the concept of coparcener and also how and in what manner the said coparcener can get the right by virtue of the Hindu Succession Act, in particular, the female and male both being Class-I heirs. It is not in dispute that the judgment of Vineeta Sharma (supra) was not available when the impugned judgment was passed by the High Court. However, it is urged that the issue as raised in the suit and the relief so prayed are required to be re-looked in the facts and evidence so brought and in the light of the judgment of Vineeta Sharma (supra) and to pass appropriate orders.

3. Having considered the submissions made, at present, we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the rights of the parties and leaving it open to the High Court to decide all the issues afresh in view of the judgment of Vineeta Sharma (supra). As such we set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore Second Appeal No. 296 of 2011 to file in its original number and direct to decide the same. Parties are at liberty to raise all the factual and legal contentions before the High Court which may be decided in accordance with law. As the suit is pending since long, i.e., from the year 1988, therefore, we request the High Court to decide the second appeal as expeditiously as possible within one year.

4. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

…………………………………………………,J.

[J.K. MAHESHWARI]

…………………………………………………,J.

[VIJAY BISHNOI]

New Delhi;

October 30, 2025.

ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.4 SECTION XII-B S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 4068/2019 PADMAVATHY Appellant(s)

VERSUS THAMARAVARDHINI . & ORS. Respondent(s)

(IA No. 187871/2022 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION IA No. 88273/2021 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS)

Date : 30-10-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI For Appellant(s) : Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, AOR Ms. Lalit Mohini Bhat, Adv.

Mr. Rahul Jain, Adv.

Mr. Abhimanyu Verma, Adv.

Mr. Nirmal Prasad, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. V. Balaji, Adv.

Mr. B. Dhananjay, Adv.

Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR Mr. Kishore Kumar K.V.D., Adv.

Ms. Aakriti Priya, Adv.

Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Mr. Ajit Sharma, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.

Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

(GULSHAN KUMAR ARORA) (NAND KISHOR)

AR-CUM-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (Signed order is placed on the file)