- Case
- KASHINATH TAPIRAM TAYDE v. PARVATABAI @ VIJAYABAI CHINTAMAN BHALERAO AND ANR (Bombay High Court, 02-01-2025)
- Law
- Constitution of India, Hindu Succession Act.
Facts: A daughter (Plaintiff) filed a suit for partition and separate possession of ancestral properties against her brother (Defendant No. 1). The Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 were both born prior to 1956, and their father died in 1990. The Defendant claimed oral partition in 1974 and that one property (Gat No. 106) was his self-acquired property. The Trial Court decreed the suit for three properties. The Defendant appealed, arguing that the Plaintiff, being born before 1956, is not entitled to coparcenary rights and that oral partition had occurred.
Procedural Posture: This is a Second Appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, arising from the Trial Court's decree in favor of the Plaintiff in a partition suit.
Issue: Whether the Plaintiff, being a daughter born before 1956, is entitled to the benefit of the amended provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Central Act of 2005, and whether the alleged oral partition is valid.
Holding: The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the amended provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, apply retrospectively, conferring coparcenary status on daughters irrespective of their date of birth. The Court also held that the Defendant failed to prove the factum of previous partition.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the Central Amendment to Section 6 prevails over the Maharashtra Amendment of 1994 due to repugnancy, as per Article 254 of the Constitution of India. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma, stating that it has settled the law that daughters born before or after the amendment are coparceners with the same rights and liabilities as sons. The Court rejected the argument that the daughter's marriage prior to 1994 would be an impediment. The Court also found that the Defendant's claim of oral partition was not sufficiently proven, especially considering his contradictory claim that Gat No. 106 was his self-acquired property. The Court emphasized that a plea of oral partition based on oral evidence alone cannot be accepted and is to be rejected outrightly.
