AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vikramajit Sen, CJ
In the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has considered the argument that Section 6(5) of the Hindu Succession Act is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution to be covered on all fours against the Petitioner/Appellant in view of the decision of the Division Bench in Pushpalatha N.V. vs V.Padma decided on 19.03.2010. We would ordinarily be bound by that decision. However, on a perusal of Ganduri Koteshwaramma and Another Vs. Chakiri Yanadi and Another, , the matter is no longer res integra. Their Lordships have held as follows:
The partition that the legislature has in mind in the present case is undoubtedly a partition completed in all respects and which has brought about an irreversible situation. A preliminary decree which merely declares shares which are themselves liable to change does not bring about any irreversible situation. Hence, we are of the view that unless a partition of the property is effected by metes and bounds, the daughters cannot be deprived of the benefits conferred by the Act. Any other view is likely to deprive a vast section of the fair sex of the benefits conferred by the amendment. Spurious family settlements, instruments of partitions not to speak of oral partitions will spring up and nullify the beneficial effect of the legislation depriving a vast section of women of its benefits.
There is no merit in the Appeal. Dismissed.