Ganduri Koteshwaramma and another v. Chakiri Yanadi and another, (2011) 9SCC 788

Admin

11 months ago

Advertisements

Spread the love

CITATION	(2011) 9 SCC 788
DATE OF JUDGMENT	12th October 2011
COURT	Supreme Court of India
APPELLANT	Ganduri Koteshwaramma and Ganduri Lakshmi
RESPONDENT	Chakiri Yanadi and Chakiri Venkata Reddy
BENCH	M. Lodha, Jagdish Singh Khehar

INTRODUCTION

The Supreme Court of India’s historic decision in the matter of Ganduri Koteshwaramma and others v. Chakiri Yanadi and others, (2011) 9SCC 788, has greatly increased the rights of daughters in coparcenary property. According to the ruling, even if the petition for property division is brought before the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 took effect, daughters are entitled to an equal share in coparcenary property as males.

Background

In its original form, the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 did not grant daughters the same rights to coparcenary property as males. Daughters did not have a right to a portion of their father’s estate while he was alive; instead, they were only entitled to one upon their father’s passing.

The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was revised in 2005 to grant daughters the same coparcenary property rights as males. The amendment, which took effect on September 9, 2005, states that a daughter of a coparcener acquires coparcener status through birth, with the same rights and obligations as a son.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The plaintiffs (the appellants) in the case of Ganduri Koteshwaramma and others v. Chakiri Yanadi and others, (2011) 9SCC 788, were the daughters of a Hindu coparcener. In 1999, they brought a lawsuit to divide coparcenary property. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was revised in 2005 to grant daughters the same coparcenary property rights as males. In 2005, a preliminary decree for partition was issued in the plaintiffs’ favor. The ultimate rule, though, was not enacted until late 2005.

ISSUE RAISED

Although the complaint for partition was filed prior to the modification taking effect, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the daughters were entitled to an equal share in the coparcenary property under the revised Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

CONTENTIONS OF APPELANT

In 1999, the appellants—daughters of a Hindu coparcener—filed a lawsuit to divide the coparcenary estate. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was revised in 2005 to grant daughters the same coparcenary property rights as males. In 2005, a preliminary decree for partition was issued in the plaintiffs’ favor. The ultimate rule, though, was not enacted until late 2005.
According to the appellants, the modified Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 entitled them to an equal part of the coparcenary property. The respondent, the coparcener’s son, countered that the modification was not retroactive in effect and that it did not apply to ongoing partition lawsuits.

The appellants’ contentions were as follows:

The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 6 change took effect retroactively and applied to all ongoing partition lawsuits.
The preliminary decree for partition that was granted in the plaintiffs’ favor in 2005 was not final and might be changed to reflect the amendment’s modifications.

Arguments in support of the contentions

The appellants claimed that the Hindu Succession Act’s 1956 addition to Section 6 was a wise piece of legislation designed to end the treatment of daughters unfairly in coparcenary property. The appellants asserted that the change ought to take effect retroactively so that it would be advantageous to all daughters, including those who had filed partition lawsuits prior to the amendment’s implementation.
In addition, the appellants contended that the 2005 preliminary decree for partition in favor of the plaintiffs was not binding. The appellants maintained that the preliminary decree was just a temporary ruling that may be changed to reflect the amendment’s modifications.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT

The respondent, the son of the coparcener, argued that the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was not retrospective in operation and that it did not apply to ongoing partition lawsuits in Ganduri Koteshwaramma and others v. Chakiri Yanadi and others, (2011) 9SCC 788.
In addition, the respondent claimed that the preliminary decision for partition that had been granted to the appellants in 2005 was final and could not be changed to reflect the amendment’s revisions.

Arguments in support of the contentions

The respondent maintained that the statute could not be retroactively applied since the alteration to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, represented a fundamental change. Retrospective application of the change, according to the respondent, would lead to ambiguity and litigation.
Additionally, the respondent claimed that the preliminary decision for partition that was granted to the appellants in 2005 was final and could not be changed to reflect the amendment’s revisions. The respondent claimed that the preliminary decree was a final, irrevocable decision.

JUDGEMENT

According to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ganduri Koteshwaramma and others v. Chakiri Yanadi and others, (2011) 9SCC 788, the change to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, applied retroactively to all ongoing partition lawsuits. The amendment, according to the court, was a good piece of legislation designed to address the unfair treatment of daughters in coparcenary property.

The Court further ruled that the preliminary decision for partition that had been granted to the plaintiffs in 2005 was not binding and might be changed to reflect the amendment’s modifications.

The Court’s judgment was based on the following grounds:

* *The amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was a beneficial legislation that was intended to remove the discrimination against daughters in coparcenary property.* The Court held that such a beneficial legislation should be given a retrospective effect so that it could benefit all daughters, including those who had filed suits for partition before the amendment came into effect.

* *The preliminary decree for partition passed in favor of the plaintiffs in 2005 was not final.* The Court held that the preliminary decree was only a provisional order that could be amended to reflect the changes brought about by the amendment.

The Court’s judgment was a landmark decision that has significantly expanded the rights of daughters in coparcenary property. The judgment has made it clear that daughters have an equal right to coparcenary property as sons, even if the suit for partition is filed before the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into effect.

The judgment has been welcomed by women’s rights groups and activists as a major step towards gender equality in India. The judgment has also been praised by legal experts for its clear and concise reasoning.

*Relevant excerpts from the judgment*

The Court held that the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was retrospective in operation and applied to all pending suits for partition. The Court reasoned as follows:

*”The amendment is a beneficial legislation and is intended to remove the discrimination against daughters in coparcenary property. Such a beneficial legislation should be given a retrospective effect so that it could benefit all daughters, including those who had filed suits for partition before the amendment came into effect.”*

The Court also held that the preliminary decree for partition passed in favor of the plaintiffs in 2005 was not final. The Court reasoned as follows:

*”The preliminary decree is only a provisional order and can be amended to reflect the changes brought about by the amendment.”*

*Impact of the judgment*

The judgment in Ganduri Koteshwaramma and another v. Chakiri Yanadi and another, (2011) 9SCC 788 has significantly expanded the rights of daughters in coparcenary property. The judgment has made it clear that daughters have an equal right to coparcenary property as sons, even if the suit for partition is filed before the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into effect.

The judgment has had the following impact:

* *It has given daughters equal rights in coparcenary property as sons.*

* *It has removed the discrimination against daughters in coparcenary property.*

* *It has promoted gender equality in India.

CONCLUSION

According to Section 6 of the revised Act from 2005, a girl who is born to a coparcener will automatically become one by her own choice in a manner identical to that of the kid.

It is obvious that children were treated as co-parents from birth under the previous clause and the old Hindu Law.

The new arrangement now recognizes the legal rights of girls’ coparceners from birth.

Similar to how the child does, the Section also utilizes these words. In this way, it should be obvious that it has granted the right to become a coparcener by birth to both the children and the daughters of a coparcener.

The simple fact of being born in a coparcenary makes one a coparcenary, hence a coparcener’s daughters and offspring legitimately become coparceners by birth.

REFERENCE

This Article is written by Lavkesh Gour student of Institute of legal Studies, Chandigarh University, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Admin

PDF 📄