JUDGMENT

G.S. Singhvi, J.

1. The question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Appellant, who failed in her challenge to the preliminary decree passed in a suit for partition filed by Respondent No. 1 can seek enhancement of her share in the joint family property in the final decree proceedings in terms of Section 6A inserted in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short, "the Act") by the Hindu Succession (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1990, which received Presidential assent on 28.7.1994 and was published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 30.7.1994.

2. The suit for partition and separate possession of his share filed by Respondent No. 1, which came to be registered as O.S. No. 425 of 1989, was decreed by Munsiff, Srirangapatna (hereinafter described as, `the trial Court') vide judgment dated 11.8.1992. The trial Court held that Plaintiff Respondent No. 1 and Defendant No. 3 are entitled to 2/7th share and Defendant Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6 are entitled to 1/28th share each.

3. Regular Appeal No. 69 of 1992 jointly filed by the Appellant, who was Defendant No. 6 in the suit and Defendant Nos. 1, 4 and 5 was dismissed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Srirangapatna (hereinafter described as `the lower appellate Court') vide judgment dated 20.3.1998. Regular Second Appeal No. 624 of 1998 filed by Defendant Nos. 1, 4 and 5 was dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 1.10.1999 on the ground that the same was barred by limitation.

4. In the meanwhile, Respondent No. 1 instituted final decree proceedings (FDP No. 5 of 1999). On being noticed by the trial Court, the Appellant filed an application under Sections 151, 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for amendment of the preliminary decree and for grant of a declaration that in terms of Section 6A inserted in the Act by the State Amendment, she was entitled to 2/7th share in the suit property. The Appellant averred that she had married one Shri M.B. Srinivasaiah on 9.8.1994, i.e. after coming into force of the State Amendment and, as such, she is entitled to higher share in the joint family property. Respondent No. 1 contested the application by asserting that with the dismissal of Regular Second Appeal No. 624 of 1998, the preliminary decree passed in O.S. No. 425 of 1989 will be deemed to have become final and in the final decree proceedings the Appellant cannot claim higher share by relying upon Section 6A which came into force in 1994. He denied the Appellant's assertion about her marriage on 9.8.1994. In the alternative, he pleaded that even if the marriage certificate produced by the Appellant is treated as genuine, she cannot claim higher share by relying upon the State Amendment.

5. By an order dated 10.7.2000, the trial Court dismissed the Appellant's application primarily on the ground that Section 6A of the Act is not retrospective. In the opinion of the trial Court, the amendment made in the Act can be applied only to those cases in which partition of the joint family properties is effected after 30.7.1994, but the same cannot be relied upon for amending the decree, which has become final. The trial Court observed that even if the daughter remains unmarried, she cannot be treated as coparcener because after partition, there remains no joint family property. The trial Court also held that the application filed by the Appellant was barred by time.

6. The Appellant's challenge to the aforesaid order was negatived by the learned Single Judge, who held that with the dismissal of the second appeal, the preliminary decree passed by the trial Court had become final and during the pendency of the second appeal filed by Defendant Nos. 1, 4 and 5, the Appellant had not prayed for enhancement of her share in the joint family property in terms of Section 6A, which was inserted by the State Amendment. The learned Single Judge relied upon the judgments of this Court in Venkata Reddy v. Pethi Reddy AIR 1963 SC 992, Gyarsi Bai v. Dhansukh Lal AIR 1965 SC 1055 and Mo