Writ - praying to declare that explanation to Section 6 of the amendment Act of 39 of 2005, Explanation: for the purpose of this Section partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court as unconstitutional and the same is liable to be struck down and etc; -2015 KAR(2015) msklawreports 





"(i) Whether Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by theAmendment Act, 2005 is prospective or retrospective in operation?



(ii) Whether Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by theAmendment Act, 2005 applies to daughters born prior to 17.6.1956?



(iii) Whether Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by theAmendment Act, 2005 applies to daughters born after 17.6.1956 and prior to 9.9.2005?



(iv) Whether Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by theAmendment Act, 2005 applies only to daughters born after 9.9.2005?



(v) Whether the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Vaishali Ganorkar is per in curium of Gandori Koteshwaramma and others?"

 In addressing an argument that the Explanation to Section 6 clearly provides that partition means any partition made by execution of a deed duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 or a partition effected by a decree of a Court and therefore, if an oral partition had taken place before 20.12.2004, such partition would not be saved either by the proviso to sub-section (1) or sub- section (5) of Section 6. And hence an oral partition effected of coparcenery property even if effected in the year 1957, would not be saved and therefore Section 6 must be held to be retrospective with effect from 17.6.1956, is met thus :







"45. Though the argument may prima facie appear to be attractive, it does not recognize the distinction between an oral partition or partition by unregistered document which is not followed by partition by metes and bounds on the one hand and oral partition or partition by unregistered document which was acted upon by physical partition of the properties by metes and bounds and entries made in the public record about such physical partition by entering the names of sharers as individual owner/s in the concerned public record, (such as records of the Municipal Corporation or the Property Registers maintained by the Government) on the other hand. It is only where an oral partition or partition by unregistered document is not followed by partition by metes and bounds, evidenced by entries in the public records that a daughter would be in a position to contend that the property still remains coparcenary property on the date of coming into force of the Amendment Act."







This bench respectfully endorses the said view and hence it is not necessary to address the constitutional validity or otherwise of the provision as sought to be claimed by the petitioners.



Further, the second prayer in the writ petition is again fully answered by the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court. Though, this bench is bound by the Division Bench judgment of this court in Pushpalatha. However, the persuasive value and the reasoning of the judgment of a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court with specific reference to Pushpalatha, can hardly be overlooked. In any event, if the petitioners should succeed on the strength of the oral partition set up, the second relief prayed for is not relevant to the petitioners. And as already stated, a Full bench of the Karnataka High Court having been seized of the very question, having deferred the hearing on the issue, pending the decision of the Apex Court on a challenge to the decision in Pushpalatha's case, the same is not addressed, independently.



The petition stands disposed of.













































Popular posts from this blog









Or.39, rule 7 of C.P.C - Petition for preservation of properties belongs to the petitioner - as the Govt. is  going to demolish the building in road widening scheme - Or.39, rule 1 made absolute against the petitioner infavour of the respondent - Trial court allowed the Petition wrongly - their lordships held that In a suit for injunction, though the question of possession as on the date of filing of the suit is most relevant, there may be other ancillary and incidental questions as to the conduct of the parties before the Court. The concept of possession in law should take in its spectrum all rights, liabilities, immunities and claims vis-`-vis the property which is said to be in possession. When the Court recorded a prima facie finding that Gayatri bai is in possession, she was also in law entitled to take advantage of that presumption.  Unless the defendant properly pleads and proves at the earliest stage regarding any such movables or immovables attached to the immovable property, no defendant can be  heard of saying that his belongings were lying in the disputed property. - 2015 A.P.(2001) MSKLAWREPORTS





















  <CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - - Or.39 Rr.1 and 2 - - Or.39 R.7 - - Suit for possession  - - Interim injuction granted was made absolute - - Later on defendant filed a  petition to remove and keep in safe custody certain movables laying in the  disputed premises alleging that those belong to him and may get spoiled in case  of demolition of the building for road widening - - Lower Court ordered handing  over such articles after preparing necessary list to the respondent/defendant.           Scope and ambit  of Or.39 R.7 and when the power thereunder to be  exercised - - Laid down.   >HELD:           Order 39 Rule 7 CPC empowers the Court to make an order for detention,  preservation and inspection of any property which is the subject matter of the  suit or as to which any question may arise in the suit.  The submission that the  power under Rule 7 can be exercised only in respect of the subject matter is  therefore not well founded. The...








Read more










Cancellation of Bail with out completing the investigation by police about threat on defacto complainant , is a premature one - - 2015 TELANGANA & AP.MSKLAWREPORTS





















   the allegation of defacto complainant is that some unknown persons on behalf of the accused,  even though they were in judicial custody, started threatening him with dire consequences if he does not come forward to compromise with them  in the case and in view of such threat he lodged report and consequently Cr.No.705 of 2014 was registered under Sections 506 and 507 IPC.  Apart from it, the complainant also narrated that some of the accused were involved in other cases and rowdy sheet was opened against A1.  The lower Court cancelled the bail taking the above allegations into consideration.  It must be noted that the threat allegations are under investigation and the persons who allegedly threatened the defacto complainant and the connection of accused with them if any has to be found out only after through investigation by the concerned police.   However, before that exercise being completed, the lower Court came to a premature conclusion about the correctness of the...








Read more