The parties engaged in a partition lawsuit may benefit from any changes to the law as long as the case is still pending and no final judgement has been issued, according to the Supreme Court. This indicates that the preliminary decree in the partition suit may be changed during the final decree proceedings if the legislation has been changed. The court further declared that in a joint property partition case, a decree reached by agreement of only some of the parties cannot be deemed valid unless it bears the written consent and signatures of all parties. This was determined by a panel made up of Justices A.S. Bopanna and J.B. Pardiwala in the case of Prasanta Kumar Sahoo &Ors. v. Charulata Sahu &Ors.
Case facts- Mr. Kumar Sahoo passed away in 1969, leaving behind three children: Mr. Prafulla, Ms. Charulata, and Ms. Santilata. (son). Ms. Charulata submitted a partition lawsuit before the trial court on December 3, 1980, asking for a one-third share of her late father’s inherited and newly acquired property.
On December 30, 1986, the trial court issued a preliminary judgement awarding Ms. Charulata and Ms. Santilata a one-third share in the self-acquired properties of Late Mr. Sahoo and a sixth share in the ancestral properties. The girls were also granted a right to share in the profits, according to the court. The court did, however, grant Mr. Prafulla a four-sixth share in the ancestral properties and a third part in Mr. Sahoo’s self-acquired properties, including the mesne profits.All of Mr. Sahoo’s assets, according to Mr. Prafulla in his appeal to the High Court, were family lands. But on March 28, 1991, Ms. Santilata and Mr. Prafulla came to a settlement agreement during the appeal proceedings, whereby Ms. Santilata gave up her share of the property in return for Rs. 5000
Mr. Prafulla persisted in arguing before the High Court the question of whether certain assets in question were inherited or self-acquired by his father. In the meantime, Ms. Charulata submitted a parallel appeal contesting the legality of the Settlement Deed signed by her sister and brother on March 28, 1991.
Mr. Prafulla’s challenge was denied by the High Court’s Division Bench on May 5, 2011, and the Settlement Deed between him and Ms. Santilata was ruled invalid. Mr. Prafulla responded by filing an appeal with the Supreme Court, claiming that the 2005 revisions to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which gave girls the same status as sons, could not be implemented retroactively after such a long period of time. In addition, Mr. Prafulla asserted that the Settlement Deed destroyed Ms. Santilata’s rights and gave them to him.
The High Court’s ruling on May 5, 2011, to deny Mr. Prafulla’s appeal and void the Settlement Deed between him and Ms. Santilata was appealed by Mr. Prafulla to the Supreme Court. He claimed in his appeal that it was too late to retroactively implement the 2005 revisions to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which gave girls the same legal standing as sons. He added that Ms. Santilata’s rights had been terminated and transferred to him by the Settlement Deed.
The Supreme Court stated that the Trial Court had not acted in conformity with the law in effect in 1986 if it had divided the father’s assets equally (one-third portion for each son and daughter). When passing the final decree, it would be acceptable to give each daughter an equal portion of the father’s assets in light of the Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma and Ors. ruling.The Trial Court’s preliminary decree, which was upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court, contained decisions on the matters that would be considered final, the Court reaffirmed. The partition litigation, however, can only be considered entirely resolved when the final decree is issued because it is decided in stages. The Trial Court may be asked to evaluate and implement the amendment at the request of the party benefiting from it, in this case the two daughters.
The Court additionally decided that if the law governing the parties has been changed, the preliminary decree in a partition matter may be modified in the final decree proceedings.
According to the data offered, it appears that the Supreme Court has ruled that the Settlement Deed in the partition litigation requires the written approval and signature of every party. The Settlement Deed between Ms. Charulata and her siblings is illegal because no one’s written approval was required because she did not sign it. The Bench also recalculated the parties’ shares while upholding the allocation of shares made by the Trial Court and the High Court. The daughters now have a right to a third share of all the possessions, including the ancestoral and self-acquired properties of the late Kumar Sahoo, according to a modification to the preliminary decree of the trial court. The Settlement Deed has been declared invalid, and the share of MsSantilata cannot be claimed by Mr. Prafulla.
Name – Srishti Bhardwaj ,College – IMS Law College
0 Comments