Back
ARUN MISHRA, S.ABDUL NAZEER, M.R.SHAH
Vineeta Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Rakesh Sharma – Respondent
The core definition of partition under the relevant legal provisions is that it constitutes an adjustment or redistribution of pre-existing rights among the co-owners or coparceners, resulting in the division of the property into separate shares or lots for individual ownership (!) . This process effectively terminates joint ownership and converts the undivided interest into severalty ownership for each partitioned share.
Furthermore, the law explicitly bars parties who do not have a share or interest in the property from being parties to a partition. Only those who have a share or interest in the property, such as coparceners or co-owners, can be involved in the partition proceedings (!) .
Regarding the stages of a partition suit, it is established that a preliminary decree in such a suit merely declares the shares or interests of the parties involved but does not effectuate an actual division of the property. The final partition is carried out only upon the passing of a final decree, which involves the physical division of the property by metes and bounds and the actual allotment of specific portions to the respective parties (!) (!) . Until the final decree is passed and executed, the partition remains incomplete, and the joint family or coparcenary continues to exist in law and fact.
Additionally, the proceedings in a partition suit can be revisited or amended in light of subsequent events or changes in law, even after a preliminary decree has been issued, provided that the final partition has not yet been effected. This ensures that the legal process remains flexible enough to accommodate new evidence or legal developments before the final division is finalized (!) (!) .
In summary, partition is a legal process that involves an equitable adjustment of rights among existing interest-holders, with clear restrictions on non-owners participating in the process, and it progresses through specific stages—initial declaration of shares via preliminary decree, followed by actual division through final decree—until the partition is fully effected.
JUDGMENT :
ARUN MISHRA, J.
1. The question concerning the interpretation of section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (in short ‘the Act of 1956’) as amended by Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (in short ‘the Act of 2005’) has been referred to a larger Bench in view of the conflicting verdicts rendered in two Division Bench judgments of this Court in Prakash and Others vs. Phulavati and Others, (2016) 2 SCC 36 and Danamma @ Suman Surpur and Another vs. Amar and Others, (2018) 3 SCC 343. In other connected matters, the question involved is similar, as such, they have also been referred for hearing along.
2. In the case of Lokmani and Others vs. Mahadevamma and Others, SLP (C) No. 6840 of 2016, the High Court held that section 6, as amended by the Act of 2005, is deemed to be there since 17.6.1956 when the Act of 1956 came into force, the amended provisions are given retrospective effect, when the daughters were denied right in the coparcenary property, pending proceedings are to be decided in the light of the amended provisions. Inequality has been removed. The High Court held that the oral partition and unregistered partition deeds are excluded from the definition of ‘partitio
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
