H.P. Chikkarama Reddy and another vs Kanthamma and others. Civil Revision Petition 431/2014 decided on 14 September 2020. Justice M.I. Arun.
Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/341450/1/CRP431-14-14-09-2020.pdf
Relevant paragraphs: 10. Prakash and others vs Phulvati and others. reported in (2016) 2 SCC 36. Paragraphs 14, 17, 18, 22 and 23 of the said judgment referred to. Para 23 of Phulvati “Accordingly, we hold that the rights under the amendment are applicable to living daughters of living coparceners as on 9.9.2005 irrespective of when such daughters are born. Disposition or alienation including partitions which may have taken place before 20.12.2004 as per law applicable prior to the said date will remain unaffected. Any transaction of partition effected thereafter will be governed by the Explanation.”.
11. Judgment in Vineet Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma and others reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 641 referred to. Para 129 of Vineet Sharma “Resultantly, we answer the reference as under: (i) The provisions contained in substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confer status of coparcener on the daughter born before or after amendment in the same manner as son with same rights and liabilities. (ii) The rights can be claimed by the daughter born earlier with effect from 9.9.2005 with savings as provided in Section 6(1) as to the disposition or alienation, partition or testamentary disposition which had taken place before 20th day of December, 2004. (iii) Since the right in coparcenary is by birth, it is not necessary that father coparcener should be living as on 9.9.2005. (iv) The statutory fiction of partition created by proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as originally enacted did not bring about the actual partition or disruption of coparcenary. The fiction was only for the purpose of ascertaining share of deceased coparcener when he was survived by a female heir, of Class-I as specified in the Schedule to the Act of 1956 or male relative of such female. The provisions of the substituted Section 6 are required to be given full effect. Notwithstanding that a preliminary decree has been passed the daughters are to be given share in coparcenary equal to that of a son in pending proceedings for final decree or in an appeal. (v) In view of the rigor of provisions of Explanation to Section 6(5) of the Act of 1956, a plea of oral partition cannot be accepted as the statutory recognized mode of partition effected by a deed of partition duly registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 or effected by a decree of a court. However, in exceptional cases where plea of oral partition is supported by public documents and partition is finally evinced in the same manner as if it had been affected by a decree of a court, it may be accepted. A plea of partition based on oral evidence alone cannot be accepted and to be rejected out rightly.
Placing reliance on the above two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioners state that as the partition deeds in question and the sale deed in favour of petitioner No.1 were executed prior to coming into force of the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, respondent No.1 has no right, title or interest over the properties in question and consequently, the suit is barred by law and the plaint ought to have been rejected by the trial Court.
13. The State Amendment of Karnataka had introduced Sections 6-A, 6-B and 6-C to Hindu Succession Act with effect from 30.07.1994. Section 6-A read as under:
“6A. Equal rights to daughter in co-parcenary property. Notwithstanding anything contained in section 6 of this Act-
(a)in a joint Hindu family governed by Mitakshara law, the daughter of a co-parcener shall by birth become a co-parcener in her own right in the same manner as the son and have the same rights in the co-parcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son inclusive of the right to claim by survivorship and shall be subject to the same liabilities and disabilities in respect thereto as the son;
(b) at a partition in such a joint Hindu family the co-parcenary property shall be so divided as to allot to a daughter the same share as is allotable to a son:
Provided that the share which a predeceased son or a predeceased daughter would have got at the partition if he or she had been alive at the time of the partition, shall be allotted to the surviving child of such predeceased son or of such predeceased daughter:
Provided further that the share allotable to the predeceased child of a predeceased son or of a predeceased daughter, if such child had been alive at the time of the partition, shall be allotted to the child of such predeceased child of the predeceased son or of such predeceased daughter, as the case may be;
(c) any property to which a female Hindu becomes entitled by virtue of the provisions of clause (a) shall be held by her with the incidents of co-parcenary ownership and shall be regarded, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, as property capable of being disposed of by her by will or other testamentary disposition;
(d) nothing in clause (b) shall apply to a daughter married prior to or to a partition which had been effected before the commencement of Hindu Succession (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1990.
The said amendment was in operation till the amendment to the Hindu Succession Act made by the Parliament, which came into effect on 09.09.2005.
14. Thus, for the purpose of State of Karnataka, the daughters had equal rights in coparcenary property even prior to the Parliament amending Section 6 which came into effect from 09.09.2005. Nevertheless, daughters married prior to the amendment were excluded from the coparcenary rights. The said restriction is removed by the amendment passed by the Parliament.
15. The decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to by the petitioners considered those transactions in which the daughters had no right over the property prior to the amendment made by the Parliament came into force. By virtue of the said decisions, the daughters cannot prefer a suit for partition, in the event if they had no right over the property prior to the amendment coming into force and the property was alienated prior to amendment coming into force. The above decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court do not bar the daughters from instituting a suit for partition, if as per prevailing law, prior to amendment she had a right over the property. In the instant case, the partitions took place by virtue of two partition deeds dated 06.02.2003. The sale took place on 22.11.2004.….But, if she had a right over the properties due to Karnataka Amendment which introduced Section 6-A to Hindu Succession Act, which was in force till it was eclipsed by the Central Amendment, in that event, she can maintain a suit for partition.
Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal
Daksha Legal 
Excellent and quality judgment,,,,
LikeLike
My mother born in ~1945 and by brother in law born in 1948 and died in 2014 who worked as revenue inspector in Karnataka.Unfortunately our grand parents were died ~ 1955 leaving behind 15 acres of land.
My mother did not got a single piece of land. Entire land was intact but I don’t know whether it was transfered to my brother in law’s name( brother of my mother).My mother orally telling about land till her death.
Now can we( three siblings of my mother )claim for the land?
LikeLike
Land is ancestral?? How did grand parents acquire the lands ??
LikeLike