Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Case Law - Section 6
Prakash v. Phulvati
Bench: ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.
Issue:
Whether Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (‘the Amendment Act’) will have retrospective effect?
Facts:
- Phulavati had filed a suit claiming partition and separate possession of her 1/7th (one-seventh) share in her father’s properties (acquired by inheritance from his adoptive mother).
- Phulavati’s father passed away on 18 February 1988.
- While the suit was pending, Phulavati amended her plaint claiming a share in her father’s properties under the Amendment Act.
- The Karnataka High Court ruled in favour of Phulavati holding that an amendment (in this case the Amendment Act) would be applicable to pending proceedings, even if such an amendment was prospective in its operation (HC Order). This HC Order was challenged before the SC.
Appellant’s contentions:
- Phulavati had a right only in the self-acquired property of her father.
- Phulavati’s father passed away on 18 February 1988, i.e. prior to the commencement of the Amendment Act. Accordingly, Phulavati could not be considered to be a coparcener at the time of commencement of the Amendment Act; and
- The Amendment Act would not be applicable in the instant case. Section 6 of the HSA as it stood prior to the commencement of the Amendment Act would apply, which did not recognise daughters’ rights in coparcenaries’ property.
Respondent’s contentions:
- The Respondent filed an appeal before the High Court stating that she had become a coparcener as per Section 6 (1) of the Amendment Act and hence she was entitled to inherit coparcener property equal to her brothers, apart from her individual right over certain properties.
- The Respondent had claimed that a daughter acquired right to all her father’s property by birth, irrespective of the date of his death, whether it is prior to the commencement of the Amendment Act or afterwards.
Final Decision:
The court held that appeal would be allowed.
In its judgment, the SC held that a plain reading of the statute (Amendment Act) itself suggests that a daughter has a right in coparcenary property on and from the commencement of the Amendment Act.
The SC held that ‘An amendment of a substantive provision is always prospective unless either expressly or by necessary intendment it is retrospective’. In the instant case there was no express or intended stipulation which would make the Amendment Act retrospective in its application and by virtue of the Amendment Act, right to coparcenary property would be available only to ‘living daughters’ of ‘living coparceners’ on 9 September 2005.
The HC Order was set aside by the SC. The matter was remanded back to the Karnataka High Court for a fresh decision based on the principle of prospective application of the Amendment Act laid down by the SC.
