Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
SA.566.2011
C
ou
rt
Appellants
Respondent
ig
h
Mr. A.V. Anturkar, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. S.B.Deshmukh, Advocate for
the Appellants.
Mr. G.M.Joshi, Advocate for Respondent nos 1, 4, 5 and 6.
Mr Vithaldas Shankar Bhandari, Respondent no.3 in-person.
Mr.Drupad s. Patil, Advocate for Respondent no.7A to 7E.
WITH
SECOND APPEAL NO. 25 OF 2013
Appellant
om
ba
y
Respondents
Mr. G.S.Godbole i/b Mr. Drupad S. Patil, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr.P.B.Shah i/b Kayval P. Shah for Respondent Nos 1A to 1C and 2.
Mr. Pramod G. Kathane, Advocate for Respondent nos 4 to 6.
WITH
SECOND APPEAL NO. 846 OF 2003
WITH
CAS/1287/2003 IN SA/846/2003
Smt.Vaijanta Vitthal Jadhav and Anr.
versus
Tanubai Vishnu Madane, deceased by heirs:
A. Sau.Shalan Maruti Shirtode and ors.
Appellant
Respondents
2 of 72
SA.566.2011
C
ou
rt
WITH
SECOND APPEAL NO. 1096 OF 2012
WITH
CAS/2166/2012 IN SA/1096/2012
Appellant
Respondent
ig
h
Appellants
ba
y
Respondents
om
Appellants
Respondent
3 of 72
SA.566.2011
Appellant
C
ou
rt
WITH
SECOND APPEAL NO. 466 OF 2011
Respondent
ig
h
WITH
SECOND APPEAL NO. 607 OF 2013
WITH
CAS/26/2014 IN SA/607/2013
Appellants
Respondents
om
ba
y
WITH
SECOND APPEAL NO. 796 OF 2012
WITH
CAS/240/2013 IN SA/796/2012
Appellant
Respondent
Appellants
Respondents
4 of 72
Appellant
Respondents
ig
h
C
ou
WITH
SECOND APPEAL NO. 58 OF 2014
WITH
CAS/138/2014 IN SA/58/2014
rt
SA.566.2011
WITH
SECOND APPEAL NO. 147 OF 2014
WITH
CAS/353/2014 IN SA/147/2014
ba
y
Appellants
Respondents
om
Appellants
Respondents
5 of 72
rt
C
ou
CORAM :
SA.566.2011
14 August 2014
ig
h
The following questions of law have been referred for our opinion:-
ba
y
om
1 2012(5)-Bom.C.R.-210
6 of 72
rt
2.
SA.566.2011
C
ou
ig
h
om
ba
y
7 of 72
SA.566.2011
C
ou
rt
ig
h
ba
y
om
8 of 72
SA.566.2011
rt
C
ou
ig
h
om
ba
y
9 of 72
SA.566.2011
C
ou
rt
ig
h
ba
y
om
10 of 72
SA.566.2011
rt
C
ou
4.
ig
h
ba
y
om
5.
while disagreeing with the view of the Division Bench held that
amended Section 6 was retrospective in operation, that is applicable
w.e.f. 17 June 1956 i.e. the date of commencement of the Principal
Act and applies to all daughters of a coparcener who are born either
before or after 9 September 2005 or daughters born before or after 17
1 2012(5)-Bom.C.R.-210
11 of 72
SA.566.2011
rt
June 1956. The learned Single Judge held that a daughter by birth
becomes a coparcener in a Hindu coparcenary in her own right in the
C
ou
ig
h
his order dated 9 June, 2014 is in disagreement with the above view
would be referred to later as many of them are also adopted as
ba
y
submissions.
The decision of the Division Bench in Vaishali S.
om
The Appellants
therein
were
daughters
of
Respondent No.1(father). The father had taken a loan from the bank
and mortgaged the property to the bank in the year 2008.( para 23 of
the judgment) On failure to repay the loan, the bank initiated recovery
proceeding under the Securitization Act. The daughters then filed a
suit, claiming to be entitled to 2/3 rd of the property as their share in
the coparcenary property. It was daughters' case that the property
which had been mortgaged by the father was a Hindu Undivided
1 2012(5)-Bom.C.R.-210
1 2012(5)-Bom.C.R.-210
12 of 72
SA.566.2011
rt
C
ou
ig
h
as follows :-
ba
y
om
therefore the suit filed by the daughters was pre-mature. This was as
the Succession had not opened. The Division Bench held that on
passing of the Amendment Act ipso facto all daughters do not become
coparceners. A daughter born after 9 September 2005 certainly
became coparcener by birth but a daughter born prior to 9 September
2005 became coparcener only upon the death of her ancestral
coparcener. Thus the contention that the Amendment Act was
retrospective and applies also to daughters born prior to 9 September
2005 was negatived.
13 of 72
SA.566.2011
rt
C
ou
ig
h
ba
y
om
14 of 72
SA.566.2011
rt
the words 'On and from' in amended Section 6(1) would itself indicate
would be rendered otiose.
C
ou
(C)
ig
h
ba
y
om
(D)
15 of 72
SA.566.2011
rt
C
ou
Ganrokar (supra)1 held that the Appellant therein are not entitled to
2/3rd interest in the suit property as Section 6 of the Principal Act was
not retrospective in operation.
7.
ig
h
ba
y
om
2012(5)-Bom.C.R.-210
2012(5)-Bom.C.R.-210
2012(5)-Bom.C.R.-210
2012(5)-Bom.C.R.-210
16 of 72
SA.566.2011
rt
not correct as it was rendered per incurium not having noticed the
decision of the Apex Court in Ganduri Koteshwaramma & Others
C
ou
v/s. Chakari & Others5 as the same was not cited before the Division
Bench.
9.
Division Bench in Vaishali S. Ganorkar did not lay down the correct
law, by a 39 page order dated 9 June 2014 the learned single Judge
ig
h
om
ba
y
5 (2011)9-SCC-788
17 of 72
SA.566.2011
C
ou
rt
ig
h
om
ba
y
10.
Mr.A.V.Anturkar, learned Senior Advocate and Mr.Girish
Godbole, learned Senior Counsel and the other learned Counsel for
the Appellants in support of their submissions that Section 6 of the
Principal Act as amended is retrospective in operation submitted as
under:(a) The decision of the Division Bench of this Court in
Vaishali S. Ganorkar (supra)1 holding it to prospective does not lay
down the correct law for the following reasons :
(i)
A plain reading of amended Section 6 would
show that the daughter of a coparcener becomes a coparcener in her
own right in the same manner as a son and has the same right in the
1 2012(5)-Bom.C.R.-210
18 of 72
SA.566.2011
C
ou
rt
coparcenary property as she would have as if she had been a son. This
was in light of the Statement of Objects and Reasons which
specifically provided that the law as existing, excluding the daughter
from participating in the coparcenary property, amounts to
discrimination on the ground of gender, negating the fundamental
rights guaranteed by the Constitution. It was proposed to remove this
discrimination and give equal rights to the daughter as made available
to a son, that the Amendment Act was being introduced.
om
ba
y
ig
h
19 of 72
SA.566.2011
C
ou
rt
This would negative the contention that Section 6 of the Principal Act
as amended is not retrospective in nature.
om
ba
y
ig
h
20 of 72
SA.566.2011
C
ou
rt
ig
h
ba
y
om
11.
As against the above, learned counsel of the Respondents
submitted that Section 6 of Principal Act as amended is only
prospective in operation and submitted as under:-
21 of 72
SA.566.2011
C
ou
rt
ig
h
ba
y
om
12.
DISCUSSION
5
2
3
5
(2011)9-SCC-788
(2009)6-SCC-99
(2006)8-SCC-581
(2011)9-SCC-788
22 of 72
rt
13.
SA.566.2011
that for sure and true interpretation of statute in general, four things
(a)
C
ou
are to be considered :
resolved
and
(d)
Parliament
ig
h
ba
y
om
23 of 72
SA.566.2011
rt
C
ou
family was a common male ancestor and the properties of the family
ig
h
ba
y
15.
daughters also got equal share along with their brothers. Under the
Dayabhaga School property is transmitted by Succession and not by
om
24 of 72
rt
16.
SA.566.2011
C
ou
ig
h
and could not dispose of the property during her life time.
Principal Act
ba
y
17.
om
25 of 72
SA.566.2011
rt
C
ou
ig
h
ba
y
18.
om
26 of 72
SA.566.2011
rt
C
ou
Report (May 2000), the Law Commission of India was of the view
that the gender reforms were called for to ensure equality. The
ig
h
ba
y
om
27 of 72
SA.566.2011
rt
21.
C
ou
22.
On
20
ig
h
December
2004,
the
Hindu
Succession
ba
y
om
28 of 72
SA.566.2011
C
ou
rt
om
ba
y
ig
h
2.
Section 6 of the Act deals with devolution of
interest of a male Hindu in coparcenary property and
recognizes the rule of devolution by survivorship among
the members of the coparcenary. The retention of the
Mitakshara coparcenary property without including the
females in it means that the females cannot inherit in
ancestral property as their male counterparts to. The
law by excluding the daughter from participating in the
coparcenary ownership not only contributes to her
discrimination on the ground of gender but also has led
to oppression and negation of her fundamental right of
equality guaranteed by the Constitution. Having regard
to the need of render social justice to women, the States
of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and
Maharashtra have made necessary changes in the law
giving equal right to daughters in Hindu Mitakshara
coparcenary property. The Kerala Legislature has
enacted the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System
(Abolition) Act, 1975.
3.
It is proposed to remove the discrimination as
contained in section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956
by giving equal rights to daughters in the Hindu
Mitakshara coparcenary property as the sons have.
Section 23 of the Act disentitles a female heir to ask for
partition in respect of a dwelling house wholly occupied
by a joint family until the male heirs choose to divide
their respective shares therein. It is also proposed to omit
the said section so as to remove the disability on female
heirs contained in that section.
29 of 72
SA.566.2011
5.
C
ou
rt
4.
The above proposals are based on the
recommendations of the Law Commission of India as
contained in its 174th Report on 'Property Rights of
Women: Proposed Reform under the Hindu Law.
The Bill seeks to achieve the above objects.
(emphasis supplied)
23.
6(1) that the Amendment Act would not apply to a daughter married
ig
h
before the commencement of the Amendment Act and also that the
Amendment Act will have no application to a partition in case the
partition had been affected before the commencement of the Amendment
Act. The aforesaid Bill was thereafter referred to the Standing committee
of Parliament. The Standing Committee after recording the historical
growth of Hindu Law and Gender inequality with regard to the property
ba
y
om
30 of 72
rt
25.
SA.566.2011
C
ou
ig
h
6(5) of the Principal Act provided that for the purposes of the Section 6
of the Act partition only means partition by registered document or
decree of Court.
ba
y
26.
Keeping the above historical development of law in
mind, we shall now consider the questions referred to us by the
learned Single Judge. Questions A & D will have to be taken up
together.
om
acquired by them before the learned Single Judge i.e. the Appellants
[challenging the view of the Division Bench in Vaishali Ganorkar
31 of 72
SA.566.2011
rt
28.
C
ou
ig
h
ba
y
om
29.
2012(5)-Bom.C.R.-210
2012(5)-Bom.C.R.-210
2012(5)-Bom.C.R.-210
2012(5)-Bom.C.R.-210
32 of 72
SA.566.2011
rt
C
ou
ig
h
open. The bank could have argued in the alternative that even if the
suit flat was a coparcenary property, the father as `Karta' of HUF had
made alienation of the suit flat by way of mortgage for a legal
ba
y
30.
om
and Reasons for the Amendment Act were not brought to the notice of
the Division Bench. Even the binding judgment of the Supreme Court
in Ganduri (supra)5 was not brought to the notice of the Division
Bench. That judgment was directly on the scope and ambit of
amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. On the contrary the
Division Bench was persuaded to follow the principle laid down by
the Supreme court in G.Sekhar (supra) 2, in which dealing with the
provision of Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, it was held that
if the date of opening of the succession to the property of a
1 2012(5)-Bom.C.R.-210
5 (2011)9-SCC-788
2 (2009)6-SCC-99
33 of 72
SA.566.2011
rt
coparcener took place before the Amendment Act 2005, then Section
23 of the pre-Amended Act would apply. In the above context, the
C
ou
ig
h
31.
ba
y
om
corrected.
Singh8
Since I was a party to the decision in Mohd. Yunus
Saleem Vs. Shivkumar Shastri (supra), which is now
being overturned by us, I think I must explain why we
take a different view from the one taken in that decision.
The point decided in that case has been elaborately
discussed before us and we find on a fuller argument that
the view taken by the Court in that case was erroneous
1 2012(5)-Bom.C.R.-210
1 2012(5)-Bom.C.R.-210
8 (1975)1-SCC-76
34 of 72
SA.566.2011
C
ou
rt
32.
ig
h
ba
y
om
35 of 72
rt
33.
SA.566.2011
C
ou
ig
h
provided for property passing in the absence of a female heir in ClassI by survivorship upon the death of the coparcener. However, if the
coparcener had any female relative such as widow, daughter or a
ba
y
However, the Principal Act did not provide any rights to the
om
36 of 72
SA.566.2011
rt
C
ou
son by virtue of her birth in the joint Hindu family. On the basis of
the Report of the Law Commission, the Government introduced a Bill in
Parliament. However, the Bill also provided in proposed Section 6 (5)
that the amended Section shall have prospective effect i.e. the
amendment shall not apply to a partition effected before the
ig
h
the
Amendment Act. However, the Act when passed did not have any
ba
y
om
37 of 72
rt
C
ou
35.
SA.566.2011
ig
h
om
ba
y
38 of 72
SA.566.2011
rt
C
ou
ig
h
ba
y
om
36.
to read Amended Section 6(1) as underin a Joint Hindu family governed by Mitakshara law, the
daughter of a coparcener, who is born on and from
39 of 72
commencement
of
the
Hindu
Succession
rt
the
SA.566.2011
C
ou
her own right in the same manner as the son and shall
have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she
ig
h
daughter of a coparcener.
(emphasis supplied)
37.
ba
y
Act shall also have the same rights in her father's coparcernary
property, (but of course with effect from the date of commencement
of the Amendment Act), as she would have if she had been a son.
om
not
40 of 72
(i)
rt
38.
SA.566.2011
(ii)
C
ou
ig
h
ba
y
om
estate from persons in whom it had vested prior to coming into force
of the new statutes. (Muhammed Abdus Samad Vs. Qurban
Hussain)9
(iii)
There
is
the
intermediate
category
called
Retroactive Statute which does not operate backwards and does not
take away vested rights. Though it operates forwards, it is brought
into operation by a characteristic or status that arose before it was
enacted. For example, a provision of an Act brought into force on 1
9 ILR.26-Allahabad-119 (129) P.C.
41 of 72
SA.566.2011
rt
C
ou
ig
h
39.
ba
y
om
for twelve calendar months next after his death, if she so long
continues a widow. In that case it was sought to remove a widow
within twelve months from the date of the death of her husband who
had died prior to the Act came into force; and it was argued that to
apply the Act to such a case was to construe it retrospectively. In
rejecting the contention, Lord Denman, C.J. made the following oftquoted observations :
It was said that the operation of the statute was
confined to persons who had become widows after the
10 1848(2)-QB-120
42 of 72
SA.566.2011
C
ou
rt
ig
h
State of Jammu & Kashmir Vs. Triloki Nath Khosa 11 wherein the
Court was called upon to examine the challenge to the service rules
which after amalgamating different cadres of engineers into one class,
ba
y
om
of cadres.
43 of 72
SA.566.2011
ba
y
ig
h
C
ou
rt
...
om
...
12 (2000)3-SCC-607
44 of 72
rt
40.
SA.566.2011
thus, clearly show that the legislative intent in enacting clause (a) is
C
ou
ig
h
had died before 9 September 2005, since she would not have acquired
any rights in the coparcenary property, her heirs would have no right
in the coparcenary property. Since Section 6(1) expressly confers
right on daughter only on and with effect from the date of coming into
force of the Amendment Act, it is not possible to take the view being
canvassed by learned counsel for the appellants that heirs of such a
ba
y
om
45 of 72
SA.566.2011
rt
42.
C
ou
ig
h
ba
y
om
Provided that nothing contained in this subsection shall affect or invalidate any disposition or
alienation including any partition or testamentary
disposition of property which had taken place before the
20th day of December, 2004.
43.
46 of 72
SA.566.2011
rt
C
ou
44.
ig
h
ba
y
om
47 of 72
SA.566.2011
rt
C
ou
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
ig
h
ba
y
om
46.
48 of 72
SA.566.2011
rt
C
ou
ig
h
advanced on behalf of the appellants for more than one reason. In the
first place, though Section 3 of the Amendment Act of Hindu
Succession (Amendment) Act 2005 has substituted with effect from 9
ba
y
om
49 of 72
SA.566.2011
rt
48.
C
ou
6.
ig
h
ba
y
We are not
om
14 (1991)2-ALL ER-712
50 of 72
SA.566.2011
C
ou
rt
ig
h
om
ba
y
... ...
15 (1994)1-ALL ER-20
51 of 72
rt
50.
SA.566.2011
the Division Bench in Ganorkar's case the first being Title to amended
C
ou
ig
h
51.
ba
y
om
dealt only with the devolution of the property on the death of the
coparcener and therefore the marginal note to pre-amended Section 6
was Devolution of interest in coparcenary property. However, in the
amended Section 6, only sub-section (3) provides for devolution of
property upon the death of the coparcener. In other words, sub-section
(1) of pre-amended Section 6 has been converted into sub-section (3)
16 (2002)2-SCC-135
17 (2013)10-SCC-772
52 of 72
SA.566.2011
rt
C
ou
ig
h
53.
ba
y
and (c) and under sub-Rule (2) are available to all daughters living on
the date of coming into force of the 2005 Amendment Act i.e. on 9
September 2005, though born prior to 9 September 2005. Obviously,
benefits of Amended Section 6 of the Act under clause (a) of sub
section (1). In other words, the heirs of daughters who died before 9
September 2005 do not get the benefits of amended Section 6.
om
the daughters born on or after 9 September 2005 are entitled to get the
53 of 72
SA.566.2011
rt
C
ou
55.
ig
h
ba
y
om
54 of 72
rt
SA.566.2011
C
ou
57.
ig
h
mind the words 'on and from commencement of the Hindu Succession
Act, 2005' found in Section 6, it must follow that the rights under the
amended Section 6 can be exercised by a daughter of a coparcener only
ba
y
om
brought into force. It would not matter whether the daughter concerned
is born before 1956 or after 1956. This is for the simple reason that the
Hindu Succession Act 1956 when it came into force applied to all
Hindus in the country irrespective of their date of birth. The date of
birth was not a criterion for application of the Principal Act. The only
requirement is that when the Act is being sought to be applied, the
person concerned must be in existence/ living. The Parliament has
specifically used the word on and from the commencement of Hindu
Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 so as to ensure that rights which
are already settled are not disturbed by virtue of a person claiming as
55 of 72
SA.566.2011
rt
an heir to a daughter who had passed away before the Amendment Act
58.
C
ou
om
ba
y
ig
h
101.
...
4 AIR-2010-Karnataka-124
56 of 72
SA.566.2011
ig
h
C
ou
rt
om
ba
y
59.
57 of 72
SA.566.2011
rt
C
ou
ig
h
ba
y
om
(c) and (d) are concerned, we hold that the Amendment Act applies to
daughters born any time provided the daughters born prior to 9
September 2005 are alive on the date of coming into force of the
4 AIR-2010-Karnataka-124
4 AIR-2010-Karnataka-124
58 of 72
SA.566.2011
rt
C
ou
between the parties that the Amendment Act applies to daughters born
ig
h
wherein the final decree was not passed before the date of
commencement of the Amended Act of 2005. Those observations
have to be examined in the context of the facts of that case, partition
had taken place between father and two sons, each of them getting
1/3rd of the coparcenary property. Thereafter, when the father died, his
interest in the coparcenary property was divided on notional partition
ba
y
om
59 of 72
SA.566.2011
rt
the Trial Court in appeal before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The
single Judge of the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the
C
ou
order of the Trial Court. In the appeal filed by sisters, the Supreme
Court set aside the order of the High Court and restored the order of
the Trial Court and directed the Trial Court to proceed for preparation
of the final decree in terms of its order dated 15 June 2009.
62.
ig
h
om
ba
y
60 of 72
C
ou
rt
SA.566.2011
om
ba
y
ig
h
61 of 72
rt
63.
SA.566.2011
C
ou
applied to a case where daughters were born long prior to the date of
coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2005 and still the Supreme
Court gave them the benefits of amended Section 6 by recognizing
rights of daughter to get share in the coparcenary property, as if she
had been a son.
ig
h
64.
that only question which the Court considered was set out in the later
om
ba
y
And, therefore, the Supreme Court was not called upon to examine
the question which is posed for our consideration.
65.
62 of 72
SA.566.2011
C
ou
rt
ig
h
ba
y
om
63 of 72
SA.566.2011
rt
also accords with the view taken by the Supreme Court in Ganduri
Koteshwaramma's case5, we are not required to dwell on this aspect
66.
C
ou
any further.
would defy logic to say that without considering whether the amended
Section 6 is prospective, retrospective or retroactive, the Supreme
Court could have decided the question whether the preliminary decree
ig
h
ba
y
the rights of the parties had not become final. If amended Section 6
was applicable only to daughters born after 9 September 2005, the
Supreme Court could not and would not have applied amended
om
5 (2011)9-SCC-788
5 (2011)9-SCC-788
5 (2011)9-SCC-788
64 of 72
rt
67.
SA.566.2011
C
ou
12 October 2011, the attention of the Supreme Court was not invited
ig
h
judgment-
ba
y
Neither the 1956 Act nor the 2005 Act seeks to reopen
vesting of a right where succession had already been
taken place. The operation of the said statute is no
doubt prospective in nature. The High Court might have
committed a mistake in opining that the operation of
Section 3 of the 2005 Act is retrospective in character,
but, for the reasons aforementioned, it does not make
any difference. What should have been held was that
although it is not retrospective in nature, its application
is prospective.
om
68.
5
2
2
2
(2011)0-SCC-788
(2009)6-SCC-99
(2009)6-SCC-99
(2009)6-SCC-99
65 of 72
SA.566.2011
69.
C
ou
rt
November 1996 leaving behind one son and four daughters. Two
daughters filed a suit for partition in 1996 on the premise that G died
ig
h
ba
y
that the son could not prove execution of the Will in view of
suspicious circumstances surrounding alleged execution of the Will
and the learned single Judge also rejected the contention based on
Section 23 of the Act in 2001. Thereafter the Amendment Act 2005
om
came into force. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court
applied the amended Act and held that in view of deletion of Section
23, there was no embargo on partition of the residential property after
9 September 2005. After 9 September 2005, any family member can
seek partition even in respect of the dwelling house. Therefore, the
question of applying bar of Section 23 of the Act no longer survives
for consideration.
70.
66 of 72
SA.566.2011
rt
C
ou
ig
h
40 & 55 :-
om
ba
y
67 of 72
SA.566.2011
rt
ig
h
C
ou
ba
y
om
72.
68 of 72
SA.566.2011
C
ou
rt
73.
It is necessary to note that in para 12 of the judgment, the
Supreme Court did set out the contention of the appellant-brother in
the following words:
If Section 23 of the Act is given retrospective effect,
ig
h
this question at all. It cannot, therefore, be said that the decision of the
Supreme Court in Ganduri's case (supra)5 rendered in 2011 runs
counter to the decision rendered on 15 April 2009 in G.Sekhar's case
74.
(supra)2.
ba
y
om
September 2005.
75.
case (supra)3, the learned counsel for the Respondents placed heavy
reliance on the following observations in paragraph 21 of the
judgment, which were also referred to by a Division Bench in
Vaishali Ganorkar's case (supra)1 :
5
2
2
3
1
(2011)9-SCC-788
(2009)6-SCC-99
(2009)6-SCC-99
(2006)8-SCC-581
2012(5)-Bom.C.R.-210
69 of 72
SA.566.2011
rt
C
ou
Amendment
Act,
2005
would
have
no
ig
h
ba
y
om
In the above case, the Supreme Court was concerned with a fact
situation where Baburam died in the year 1989 leaving behind two
sons and three daughters. The elder son Lal Chand was born in 1938
whereas Sohan Lal was born in 1956. Baburam had inherited the
70 of 72
SA.566.2011
rt
share in the coparcenary property left by his father. The High Court
considered the question whether the provisions of Section 8 of the
C
ou
1956 Act would apply or the law as applicable prior to 1956 Act
would apply. The High Court held that the law applicable before
1956 would govern the rights of the parties and not the provisions of
1956 Act. In the appeal preferred by the sisters, the Supreme Court
held that the succession having opened in 1989 on the death of
Baburam, evidentally, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 would apply
ig
h
76.
ba
y
or after 9 September 2005 that the amended Section 6(3) of the Act
would apply. The Division Bench was, therefore, not right in relying
upon the Supreme Court decision in Sheeladevi (supra)3 for the
om
71 of 72
rt
SA.566.2011
ig
h
C
ou
ba
y
(I)
Question (a) Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as
amended by the Amendment Act of 2005 is retroactive in operation, as
explained in this judgment.
om
In brief :
5
2
3
1
5
(2011)9-SCC-788
(2009)6-SCC-99
(2006)8-SCC-581
2012(5)-Bom.C.R.-210
(2011)9-SCC-788
72 of 72
rt
SA.566.2011
C
ou
ba
y
ig
h
(III) Question (e) Yes. Decision of the Division Bench of this Court
in Vaishali S. Ganorkar1 is per incurium the Supreme Court decision in
Ganduri Koteshwaramma5 case.
(CHIEF JUSTICE)
(M.S.SANKLECHA, J.)
(M.S.SONAK, J.)
om
mst
1 2012(5)-Bom.C.R.-210
5 (2011)9-SCC-788