Parties To A Partition Lawsuit May Request The Benefits Of New Legislation While The Case Is Still Pending

Case title:
Prasanta Kumar Sahoo & Ors.Vs. Charulata Sahu & Ors.

Date of Order:
13th March, 2023

Bench:
Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice J.B. Pardiwala

Parties:
Petitioner: Prasanta Kumar Sahoo & Ors.
Defendant: Charulata Sahu &Ors.

Facts

• When Mr. Kumar Sahoo passed away in 1969, his three children, Mr. Prafull, Ms. Charulata, and Ms. Santilata, were still living (son).
• Ms. Charulata filed a partition lawsuit before the Trial Court on March 12, 1980, asking for a third share in the patrimonial and self-acquired assets of her late father, Mr. Sahoo. The Trial Court issued a preliminary ruling on December 30, 1986, stating that Ms. Charulata and Ms. Santilata were each entitled to a 1/3 share of the Late Kumar Sahoo's self-acquired properties and a 6/6 share of the ancestral properties. The Trial Court further ordered that the girls had a right to half the profits.Mr. Prafulla (son), on the other hand, was entitled to a 4/6th portion of the ancestral estates and a 1/3rd share of Mr. Sahoo's self-acquired holdings, including the mesne profits.
• All of Mr. Sahoo's properties, according to Mr. Prafulla's first appeal filed with the High Court, are ancestral properties. In a Settlement Deed dated 28.03.1991 that they entered into while the appeal was pending, Ms. Santilata and Mr. Prafulla agreed to give up their respective shares in exchange for Rs. 50,000.
• On the question of whether some properties that were the subject of a partition litigation were inherited or self-acquired by his father, Mr. Prafulla continued to argue before the Supreme Court. In a related appeal, Ms. Charulata contested the legality of the Settlement Deed signed between her sister and brother on March 28, 1991.
• On May 5, 2011, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal Mr. Prafulla had filed and nullified both the Settlement Deed he had gone into with himself and the one he had entered into with Ms. Santilata. The Supreme Court received an appeal from Mr. Prafulla regarding the Order dated May 5, 2011. There was a contention that the 2005 modifications to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ("Act, 1956"), which made daughters co-parceners on an equal footing with sons, could no longer be put into effect. Furthermore, in light of the Settlement Deed, Ms. Santilata's rights were declared void and handed to Mr. Prafulla.

Issues Raised

How would the dicta established by this Court in its ruling in the case of Vineeta Sharma be applied to the parties' rights?

Whether the High Court had grounds to declare the appellants and respondents' settlement unlawful?

Agruments

• The parties can request that the Trial Court apply the modified statute when a partition lawsuit is still pending and no final judgement has been rendered. The Bench cited the ruling in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma and Ors., (2020) 9 SCC 1, which determined that cases where the male coparcener dies before the Amendment in 2005 would also be covered by the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which gave daughters coparcenary rights as of September 9, 2005.
• It was further held that any legislative amendment or subsequent event that results in an expansion, reduction, or alteration in the share or rights of the Parties may be taken into consideration while passing the final decree during the pendency of the partition suit or between the passing of the preliminary decree and final decree in the partition suit.
• The Bench stated that the Trial Court's division of the father's assets into equal shares for the son and daughters (one third each) would not have been consistent with the law in effect in 1986. Nonetheless, in light of the Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma and ors. verdict, the distribution of an equal portion to daughters in all of the father's holdings would be legal when passing the final decree.
• At the risk of repetition, we reiterate that the issues decided therein will be deemed to have become final by virtue of the preliminary decree passed by the Trial Court, which was upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court, but that because the partition suit must be decided in stages, the same can only be regarded as fully and completely decided when the final decree is passed. The parties' governing legislation was revised before the final decree processes were completed, thus the party who benefited from the amendment (in this case, the two daughters) may ask the Trial Court to take notice of the amendment and give it effect.
• According to a ruling, if the legislation controlling the parties has changed, the preliminary decree in a partition suit may be changed during the final decree processes.
• In a partition case, the written agreement and signatures of "ALL" parties are required on the Settlement Deed. It has been noted that Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Civil Process Act, 1908 states that any valid agreement or compromise that adjusts a claim in court completely or in part must be in writing and signed by all parties.
• The Settlement Deed between Ms. Charulata's siblings is illegal since "all" parties must have given their written approval for it to be valid because Ms. Charulata did not sign it. A decree reached with the agreement of just some of the parties cannot be upheld in a lawsuit for the division of common property.
• The Bench recalculated the parties' shares and upheld the allocation of shares made by the Trial Court and the High Court. The daughters now have a right to a third share of all the holdings, including the ancestral and self-acquired properties of the late Kumar Sahoo, according to a modification to the preliminary decree of the trial court.
• The Settlement Deed is no longer legal, hence Mr. Prafulla is no longer entitled to Ms. Santilata's portion. Mr. R. Basant, a senior attorney, appeared on behalf of the respondents.
• The Settlement Deed is no longer legal, hence Mr. Prafulla is no longer entitled to Ms. Santilata's portion. Mr. R. Basant, a senior attorney, appeared on behalf of the respondents.
• Impact of the 2005 change to the ongoing partition dispute on the Hindu Succession Act of 1956. The two daughters in the current case can request that the Trial Court take cognizance of the Amendment and give effect to the same because the legislation affecting the parties was altered before the conclusion of the final decree proceedings. On to paragraph 80 Rakesh Sharma and Others v. Vineeta Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1;
• Code of Civil Process Order XXII Rule 3 states that any valid agreement or compromise that completely or partially resolves a claim in litigation must be made in writing, have all parties' signatures, and be fully enforceable. A ruling reached by agreement of just some of the parties cannot be upheld in a lawsuit for the division of joint property (paras. 93, 94). The attorney representing the defendant under Order XXII Rule 3-d of the Code of Civil Procedure might have signed the compromise petition without the express permission of the parties. The Court has a responsibility to confirm the validity and legality of the compromise deed.

Analysis

• The daughters are now entitled to a third part of all the properties listed in the plaint, including the ancestral and self-acquired possessions of Late Shri Kumar Sahoo, as modified by the preliminary judgement drafted by the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court. The decree will be appropriately modified by the Trial Court.
• The Appellants in this case will not be entitled to the share of the Original Defendant No. 2, since we have determined that the settlement between the Original Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 resply was unlawful.
• Only a third of the suit properties will be awarded to the appellants.
• The Appellants must now present accounts to the Trial Court since Defendant No. 1 has been named receiver.

Conclusion

According to the Supreme Court, parties to a partition lawsuit may request the benefits of new legislation while the case is still pending, and the preliminary decree may be changed during final decree processes. A decree reached by agreement of only some parties in a lawsuit for the division of joint property cannot be upheld unless all parties sign the agreement. In this case, the High Court overturned a settlement agreement between siblings and established each party's share of their deceased father's ancestral and self-acquired property. The appellant asserted that the 1956 Hindu Succession Act's changes could not be implemented in the past.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement

Learn the practical aspects of Criminal Law Drafting HERE, IBC HERE, CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, NDPS Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE