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…
Source excerpt
- 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