Ganduri Koteshwaramma v. Chakiri Yanadi
A daughter's coparcenary rights under amended Section 6 are not lost merely because a preliminary partition decree was passed before 9.9.2005; the decree can be reopened until the final decree.
Facts
A son filed a partition suit; a preliminary decree determining shares was passed in 1999 and amended in 2003. Before the final decree could be passed, the 2005 Amendment came into force on 9.9.2005. The two daughters applied for re-allotment of equal shares; the trial court allowed it, but the High Court set that aside on the view that the preliminary decree could not be altered.
Issues
- Whether daughters can claim the benefit of amended Section 6 where a preliminary decree was passed but the final decree had not yet been passed before 9.9.2005
- Whether a preliminary decree in a partition suit can be amended on account of a supervening change in law
Arguments
The daughters argued that since partition was not effected by a registered deed or by a court decree before 20.12.2004, and the suit was still pending at the final-decree stage, the amended Section 6 entitled them to equal shares. The plaintiff argued that the preliminary decree had crystallised shares and could not be altered.
Held
The Court held that a partition suit is not concluded by the preliminary decree; until the final decree is passed and possession by metes and bounds delivered, the partition is not complete and shares remain liable to variation on supervening events. Relying on Phoolchand v. Gopal Lal and S. Sai Reddy v. S. Narayana Reddy, it held that a court can amend a preliminary decree, or pass a fresh one, to give effect to the 2005 Amendment. As no partition had been effected by registered deed or decree before 20.12.2004, the daughters were entitled to equal shares. The High Court's view was set aside and the trial court's order restored.
Ratio decidendi
Where a final decree has not been passed in a partition suit, daughters cannot be deprived of equal coparcenary shares under amended Section 6; a preliminary decree may be amended to reflect the change in law, since partition is complete only on the final decree.
Significance
A leading and frequently-followed authority establishing that pending partition suits attract the 2005 Amendment, and that a preliminary decree is not a bar. It was expressly approved and applied in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma.
Related
Test yourself on Family Law. Application-level MCQs with instant scoring.
