There is neither any express provision for giving retrospective effect to amended provision nor necessary intendment to that effect
Citation
CDJ 2015 SC 869
Prakash and others vs Phulavathi and others
Head note
Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 - Partition – Determination of share – Applicability and effect of provision - Respondent-Plaintiff filed suit for partition and separate possession to extent of 1/7th share in suit properties - Trial Court partly decreed suit to extent of 1/28th share in certain properties on basis of notional partition and in some of items of property no share was given while 1/7th share was given in some other properties – High Court held that Respondent entitled to 1/7th share in all items - Whether 2005 Act will have retrospective effect.
Court held - there is neither any express provision for giving retrospective effect to amended provision nor necessary intendment to that effect - Requirement of partition being registered can have no application to statutory notional partition on opening of succession as per unamended provision, having regard to nature of such partition which is by operation of law - Legislature has expressly made Amendment applicable on and from its commencement and only if death of coparcener in question is after Amendment - No other interpretation possible in view of express language of statute - Rights under amendment are applicable to living daughters of living coparceners irrespective of when such daughters are born - Disposition or alienation including partitions as per law applicable prior to said date will remain unaffected - Any transaction of partition effected thereafter will be governed by Explanation - Order of High Court set aside - Matter remanded to High Court for fresh decision in accordance with law - Appeal allowed.
(Para 17, 18, 23, 24)
Cases Referred:
(1) M. Prithviraj vs. Neelamma N. (ILR 2009 Kar. 3612)
(2) G. Sekar Vs. Geetha and others reported in (2009) 6 SCC 99.
(3) Shyam Sunder vs. Ram Kumar (2001) 8 SCC 24, Paras 22 to 27).
(4) RBI vs. Peerless (1987) 1 SCC 424, para 33).
(5) Kehar Singh vs. State (1988) 3 SCC 609).
(6) District Mining Officer vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. (2001) 7 SCC 358).
(7) S. Sundaram Pillai vs. R. Pattabiraman (1985) 1 SCC 591).
(8) Keshavji Ravji & Co. vs. CIT (1990) 2 SCC 231).
(9) Prema vs. Nanje Gowda (2011) 6 SCC 462),
(10) Ganduri Koteshwaramma vs. Chakiri Yanadi (2011) 9 SCC 788),
(11) V.K. Surendra vs. V.K. Thimmaiah (2013) 10 SCC 211, para 18),
(12) Ram Sarup vs. Munshi (1963) 3 SCR 858),
(13) Dayawati vs. Inderjit (1966) 3 SCR 275),
(14) Amarjit Kaur vs. Pritam Singh (1974) 2 SCC 363),
(15) Lakshmi Narayan Guin vs. Niranjan Modak (1985) 1 SCC 270),
(16) S. Sai Reddy vs. S. Narayana Reddy (1991) 3 SCC 647)
(17) State of Maharashtra vs. Narayan Rao (1985) 2 SCC 321
(18) State of Rajasthan vs. Mangilal Pindwal (1996) 5 SCC 60)
(19) West U.P. Sugar Mills Asson. vs. State of U.P. (2002) 2 SCC 645)
(20) Sheela Devi vs. Lal Chand (2006) 8 SCC 581)
(21) G. Sekar vs. Geetha (2009) 6 SCC 99, para 30)
(22) Bagirathi vs. S. Manivanan (AIR 2005 Mad 250 (DB))
(23) Badrinarayan Shankar Bhandari Vs. Ompraskash Shankar Bhandari (AIR 2014, BOM 151. paras 40-57)
(24) Gurupad Khandappa Magdum vs. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum (1978) 3 SCC 383, paras 6,11 and 13),
(25) Shyama Devi vs. Manju Shukla (1994) 6 SCC 342, para 7)
(26) Anar Devi vs. Parmeshwari Devi (2006) 8 SCC 656, paras 10,11)
(27) Vaishali Satish Ganorkar vs. Satish Keshaorao Ganorkar (AIR 2012, BOM 101, paras 13 to 37),
(28) Kale vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation (1976) 3 SCC 119, para 9)
(29) Digambar Adhar Patil vs. Devram Girdhar Patil (1995) Supp. 2 SCC 428 at page 430)
(30) Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari (2001) 3 SCC 179, para 15)
(31) Kannaiyan vs. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise (1969 (2) MLJ 277),
(32) C.I.T. Gujarat vs. Keshavlal Lallubhai Patel (1965) 2 SCR 100),
(33) Umayal Achi vs. Lakshmi Achi (AIR 1945 FC 25 at 31(d))
(34) Shivappa Laxman vs. Yellawa Shivappa Shivagannavar (AIR 1954 BOM 47, para 4)
(35) Ahmedabad Women Action Group(AWAG) vs. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 573),
(36) Sarla Mudgal vs. Union of India (1995) 3 SCC 635
(37) Madhu Kishwar vs. State of Bihar (1996 (5) SCC 125
(38) Danial Latifi vs. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 740).
(39) Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn. [1985(3) SCC 545]
(40) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [1978 (1) SCC 248]
(41) Javed vs. State of Haryana (2003) 8 SCC 369),
(42) John Vallamattom vs. UOI (2003) 6 SCC 611)
(43) Charu Khurana vs. UOI (2015) 1 SCC 192)
Comparative Citations:
2015 (4) KCCR 3265, 2015 (6) KantLJ 177, 2015 (6) CTC 576, 2015 (3) CalLJ 153, 2015 (6) ALT 34, 2015 (4) WBLR 793, 2015 (9) SCJ 400, 2015 (4) RCR(Civil) 952, 2015 (11) Scale 643, 2015 AIR(SCW) 6160, 2015 (8) MLJ 115, 2016 (1) ACJ 59, 2016 (114) ALR 240, 2016 (157) ALLINDCAS 111, 2016 (1) AWC 331, 2016 (1) KLT 7, 2016 (1) MPLJ 108, 2016 (2) SCC 36, 2016 (1) AIR(Bom) R 83, 2015 ILR(Kar) 5329, 2015 (180) PunLR 561, 2015 (6) AD(SC) 180, 2015 (4) JLJR 484, 2016 (1) MAH.L.J 1, 2016 (1) Pat LJR 1, 2016 (1) BCR 419, 2016 (2) SCC 36, 2016 AIR(SCW) 769, 2016 (121) CLT 1, 2016 (130) RD 718, 2016 (1) CalLT 79, 2016 (1) UC 436, 2015 (4) CCC 269, 2016 AIR(SC) 769,
Court held - there is neither any express provision for giving retrospective effect to amended provision nor necessary intendment to that effect - Requirement of partition being registered can have no application to statutory notional partition on opening of succession as per unamended provision, having regard to nature of such partition which is by operation of law - Legislature has expressly made Amendment applicable on and from its commencement and only if death of coparcener in question is after Amendment - No other interpretation possible in view of express language of statute - Rights under amendment are applicable to living daughters of living coparceners irrespective of when such daughters are born - Disposition or alienation including partitions as per law applicable prior to said date will remain unaffected - Any transaction of partition effected thereafter will be governed by Explanation - Order of High Court set aside - Matter remanded to High Court for fresh decision in accordance with law - Appeal allowed.
(Para 17, 18, 23, 24)
Cases Referred:
(1) M. Prithviraj vs. Neelamma N. (ILR 2009 Kar. 3612)
(2) G. Sekar Vs. Geetha and others reported in (2009) 6 SCC 99.
(3) Shyam Sunder vs. Ram Kumar (2001) 8 SCC 24, Paras 22 to 27).
(4) RBI vs. Peerless (1987) 1 SCC 424, para 33).
(5) Kehar Singh vs. State (1988) 3 SCC 609).
(6) District Mining Officer vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. (2001) 7 SCC 358).
(7) S. Sundaram Pillai vs. R. Pattabiraman (1985) 1 SCC 591).
(8) Keshavji Ravji & Co. vs. CIT (1990) 2 SCC 231).
(9) Prema vs. Nanje Gowda (2011) 6 SCC 462),
(10) Ganduri Koteshwaramma vs. Chakiri Yanadi (2011) 9 SCC 788),
(11) V.K. Surendra vs. V.K. Thimmaiah (2013) 10 SCC 211, para 18),
(12) Ram Sarup vs. Munshi (1963) 3 SCR 858),
(13) Dayawati vs. Inderjit (1966) 3 SCR 275),
(14) Amarjit Kaur vs. Pritam Singh (1974) 2 SCC 363),
(15) Lakshmi Narayan Guin vs. Niranjan Modak (1985) 1 SCC 270),
(16) S. Sai Reddy vs. S. Narayana Reddy (1991) 3 SCC 647)
(17) State of Maharashtra vs. Narayan Rao (1985) 2 SCC 321
(18) State of Rajasthan vs. Mangilal Pindwal (1996) 5 SCC 60)
(19) West U.P. Sugar Mills Asson. vs. State of U.P. (2002) 2 SCC 645)
(20) Sheela Devi vs. Lal Chand (2006) 8 SCC 581)
(21) G. Sekar vs. Geetha (2009) 6 SCC 99, para 30)
(22) Bagirathi vs. S. Manivanan (AIR 2005 Mad 250 (DB))
(23) Badrinarayan Shankar Bhandari Vs. Ompraskash Shankar Bhandari (AIR 2014, BOM 151. paras 40-57)
(24) Gurupad Khandappa Magdum vs. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum (1978) 3 SCC 383, paras 6,11 and 13),
(25) Shyama Devi vs. Manju Shukla (1994) 6 SCC 342, para 7)
(26) Anar Devi vs. Parmeshwari Devi (2006) 8 SCC 656, paras 10,11)
(27) Vaishali Satish Ganorkar vs. Satish Keshaorao Ganorkar (AIR 2012, BOM 101, paras 13 to 37),
(28) Kale vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation (1976) 3 SCC 119, para 9)
(29) Digambar Adhar Patil vs. Devram Girdhar Patil (1995) Supp. 2 SCC 428 at page 430)
(30) Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari (2001) 3 SCC 179, para 15)
(31) Kannaiyan vs. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise (1969 (2) MLJ 277),
(32) C.I.T. Gujarat vs. Keshavlal Lallubhai Patel (1965) 2 SCR 100),
(33) Umayal Achi vs. Lakshmi Achi (AIR 1945 FC 25 at 31(d))
(34) Shivappa Laxman vs. Yellawa Shivappa Shivagannavar (AIR 1954 BOM 47, para 4)
(35) Ahmedabad Women Action Group(AWAG) vs. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 573),
(36) Sarla Mudgal vs. Union of India (1995) 3 SCC 635
(37) Madhu Kishwar vs. State of Bihar (1996 (5) SCC 125
(38) Danial Latifi vs. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 740).
(39) Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn. [1985(3) SCC 545]
(40) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [1978 (1) SCC 248]
(41) Javed vs. State of Haryana (2003) 8 SCC 369),
(42) John Vallamattom vs. UOI (2003) 6 SCC 611)
(43) Charu Khurana vs. UOI (2015) 1 SCC 192)
Comparative Citations:
2015 (4) KCCR 3265, 2015 (6) KantLJ 177, 2015 (6) CTC 576, 2015 (3) CalLJ 153, 2015 (6) ALT 34, 2015 (4) WBLR 793, 2015 (9) SCJ 400, 2015 (4) RCR(Civil) 952, 2015 (11) Scale 643, 2015 AIR(SCW) 6160, 2015 (8) MLJ 115, 2016 (1) ACJ 59, 2016 (114) ALR 240, 2016 (157) ALLINDCAS 111, 2016 (1) AWC 331, 2016 (1) KLT 7, 2016 (1) MPLJ 108, 2016 (2) SCC 36, 2016 (1) AIR(Bom) R 83, 2015 ILR(Kar) 5329, 2015 (180) PunLR 561, 2015 (6) AD(SC) 180, 2015 (4) JLJR 484, 2016 (1) MAH.L.J 1, 2016 (1) Pat LJR 1, 2016 (1) BCR 419, 2016 (2) SCC 36, 2016 AIR(SCW) 769, 2016 (121) CLT 1, 2016 (130) RD 718, 2016 (1) CalLT 79, 2016 (1) UC 436, 2015 (4) CCC 269, 2016 AIR(SC) 769,
Comments
Post a Comment