PRASANTA KUMAR SAHOO & ORS. versus CHARULATA SAHU & ORS.

PRASANTA KUMAR SAHOO & ORS. versus CHARULATA SAHU & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that (1) under Vineeta Sharma the substituted Section 6 confers coparcenary rights on daughters by birth and those rights must be given effect to in final decree proceedings where the amendment came into force before conclusion of final decree, entitling the plaintiff (a daughter) to 1/3 share in all properties scheduled in the plaint; (2) the cross-appeal by Original Defendant No.2 challenging the recorded compromise was maintainable under Order XLI r.22 read with O. XLIII r.1-A(2); and (3) the settlement between Defendant Nos.1 and 2 was invalid under Order XXIII r.3 as the plaintiff did not sign the settlement and the compromise petition was signed by an advocate...

Parties
Appellants: Prasanta Kumar Sahoo & Ors.; Respondents: Charulata Sahu & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal by the Supreme Court (appeals Dismissed With Modifications)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; preliminary decree modified to give effect to the 2005 Amendment and to grant daughters 1/3 share in all properties; settlement between Original Defendant Nos.1 and 2 set aside
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Section 6 (hindu Succession Act), Partition of Joint Family Property, Validity of Compromise Under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, Maintainability of Cross Appeal, Authority of Advocate to Sign Compromise, Effect of Legislative Change on Pending Partition Proceedings
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Hindu Succession (amendment) Act, 2005 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Family Law Property Law Interpretation of Section 6 (hindu Succession Act) Partition of Joint Family Property Validity of Compromise Under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prasanta Kumar Sahoo & Ors.

Appellants

Charulata Sahu & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal by the Supreme Court (appeals Dismissed With Modifications)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (as amended in 2005) applies to daughters where the male coparcener had died before commencement of the Amendment Act and its effect on pending partition proceedings
  2. 2 Whether a preliminary decree in a partition suit can be varied in final decree proceedings in light of a subsequent legislative amendment
  3. 3 Whether the cross-appeal filed by Original Defendant No.2 challenging a compromise recorded under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC was maintainable

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that (1) under Vineeta Sharma the substituted Section 6 confers coparcenary rights on daughters by birth and those rights must be given effect to in final decree proceedings where the amendment came into force before conclusion of final decree, entitling the plaintiff (a daughter) to 1/3 share in all properties scheduled in the plaint; (2) the cross-appeal by Original Defendant No.2 challenging the recorded compromise was maintainable under Order XLI r.22 read with O. XLIII r.1-A(2); and (3) the settlement between Defendant Nos.1 and 2 was invalid under Order XXIII r.3 as the plaintiff did not sign the settlement and the compromise petition was signed by an advocate...

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; preliminary decree modified to give effect to the 2005 Amendment and to grant daughters 1/3 share in all properties; settlement between Original Defendant Nos.1 and 2 set aside

Orders

  • Daughters are entitled to 1/3rd share in all properties scheduled in the plaint (ancestral and self-acquired) and Trial Court shall modify the decree accordingly
  • Settlement/compromise between Original Defendant Nos.1 and 2 (dated 28.03.1991) is declared not in accordance with law and set aside