9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 29-A of the Hindu Succession Act regarding daughters' rights in coparcenary property. 2. Effect of a preliminary decree on daughters' entitlement to share in joint family property post-amendment. 3. Determination of when a partition can be said to have been effected under the amended provision. Analysis: The judgment by the Supreme Court dealt with the interpretation of Section 29-A of the Hindu Succession Act, focusing on daughters' rights in coparcenary property. The case involved an appeal against the High Court's decision allowing unmarried daughters to claim a share in the joint family property following an amendment to the Act. The Appellant had filed a suit for partition, which was contested by the father and brother. The trial court passed a preliminary decree declaring one-third share for each party. The High Court upheld this decree but directed provision for maintenance and marriage expenses of unmarried sisters. Subsequently, the daughters claimed their share post-amendment, leading to rejection by the trial court and a successful revision petition in the High Court. The central issue revolved around the effect of the preliminary decree on daughters' entitlement post-amendment. The Appellant argued that the High Court erred in directing the trial court to allot shares to the daughters due to the pre-existing decree. However, the Court analyzed Section 29-A, emphasizing the removal of distinctions between daughters and sons in coparcenary rights. It noted that the amendment aimed to rectify social injustices and promote gender equality. The Court examined the legislative intent behind Clause (iv) of Section 29-A, which exempted certain cases from daughters' entitlement based on pre-existing partitions or marriages. The Court clarified that a partition under the amended provision must be complete with the division of property by metes and bounds to deprive daughters of their rights. It distinguished between a preliminary decree, which only determines shares subject to change, and a final decree effecting irreversible partition. Emphasizing the legislative objective to benefit women, the Court held that unless a partition is finalized, daughters cannot be denied their statutory entitlement. The judgment underscored the importance of preventing misuse of legal loopholes to undermine the amendment's purpose and deprive women of their rights. In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming the daughters' entitlement to a share in the joint family property. The Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the need to interpret the law liberally to uphold the legislative intent of gender equality and social justice.
|
