Author: Riya Singh, Law student at Amity Law school, Amity University Lucknow 

Edited by: Sushmana Pandey Law student at Amity University Lucknow 

ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

In a succinct yet thorough analysis, this document aims to simplify the essential points addressed within the Supreme Court’s recent 68-page judgment related to the legal validity of including daughters in the right to share in the property under section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. The petition was filed by Charulata Sahu (Original plaintiff) d/o of the Late Shree Kumar Sahoo.

This case involves a petition filed before the Supreme Court of India under section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act,1956 seeking equal rights of a daughter in the ancestral property of the father demanding a 1/3^rd share in the properties. Also seeing the sustainability of cross-appeal and challenging the settlement agreement. However, the SC in its final judgement held that daughters have the right to share equal to sons in the ancestral as well as the self-acquired property under the amendment of the 2005 Act.

Keywords: Ancestral property, Cross-appeal, Supreme Court of India, Settlement agreement, Amendment of 2005.

CASE DETAILS

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

Legal case regarding Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and Partition suit. Supreme Court’s analysis of cross-appeal sustainability and settlement agreements’ viability. Plaintiff Charulata Sahu suing defendants Prafulla Sahoo and Santilata for ancestral property share. Interpretation of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in the context of partition suit examined in the case. Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act in 2005 was considered in the legal proceedings. Petition filed in 1980 for equal share in ancestral properties under the Hindu Succession Act.

According to the petition, the case delves around the partition of ancestral properties between one son and two daughters for claiming a 1/3^rd share equally. However, defendant no.1 and defendant no. 2 in the absence of the plaintiff came into a settlement agreement and defendant no .2 (daughter) was ready to relinquish her right to property.

FACTS OF THE CASE

This case concerns siblings, the plaintiff and defendant, who are the children of the Late Shree Kumar Sahoo. Mr. Sahoo possessed ancestral property and the daughters (the original plaintiff(s)) are seeking an equal share in the properties. In 1980, Charulata Sahu (the plaintiff) filed a suit for partition of property, claiming 1/3^rd property share. But defendant no.1 and defendant no. 2 came to a settlement agreement without the written consent of the plaintiff which was later overturned by the cross-appeal by the plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit, the amendment of 2005 in the Hindu Succession Act came into force, granting daughters equal inheritors rights.

LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

• Whether the settlement deed was valid or not?
• Whether the benefit from the amendment of 2005 should be provided to the daughters?
• Whether the daughters authorized to 1/3^rd part in both the properties i.e. the ancestral and self-acquired

PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

• The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that the properties in the schedule ‘J’ were self-acquired properties of Late Shree Kumar Sahoo. According to the counsels, all the properties devolved to the plaintiff and defendant are ancestral properties.
• applying the 2005 amendment retroactively to property transactions between 1965 and 2005 could cause significant disruption (desolation).
• The counsel further submitted that as per section 6 of the Act 1956, no disposition or rupture including the partition of property which took place before 2004 shall not be given validation of the 2005 amendment.
• The counsel also contended that the cross-appeal is maintainable under Order XLI Rule 22 of the CPC on the ground of challenging the compromise and should be considered the same as the first appeal.
• The learned Senior Counsel states that there being no merit in the appeals the same may be dismissed and the shares of the parties be determined under the 2005 Amendment.
• The Counsel further supports his arguments that the settlement agreement between both defendants was lawful, he relied on the following previous decision of the courts:
  • “Bai Chanchal and Ors v. Syed Jalaluddin and others, 1970.”
  • “Byram Pestonji Gariwala v. Union Bank of India, 1992.”
  • “D.S Lakshmaiah and Another v. L. Bal Subramanyam and Another, 2003.”
  • “Jineshwar Das (dead) by LR.s. and others v. Jagrani (Smt) and Another, 2003”
  • “Pushpa Devi Bhagat (Dead) through LR. Sadhna Rai (Smt) v. Rajender Singh and Others, 2006.”

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

• The counsels for Respondent submitted that there is no error of law made by the High Court in its judgment. Also, she mentioned that as per Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma,2020, the plaintiff has the right to the 1/3^rd share in her father’s properties.
• The counsel further submitted that the amendment of 2005 to section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the verdict given in Vineeta Sharma’s case, the daughter has equal rights in the ancestral property. The plaintiff should get a large share of the property, the order needs modification.
• The counsel further states that the plaintiff and defendant are equally entitled to 1/3^rd share in both self-acquired and ancestral properties of their father Late Shree Kumar Sahoo. She elucidates that alienation before 20.12.2004 is allowed, but if not necessary, it goes to the co-parcener. The trial court decides that defendant No. 1 owns the sold property. Sales after the suit are affected by the pending litigation.
• The counsel further contended that of 4,408 acres, 3.762 acres are available for division. Also, the property in schedules C, D, E, and F are available for division.
• The counsel further submitted that in the settlement between defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2, the plaintiff was never involved in the agreement. No notice was issued to her, nor did she sign the agreement or give consent to any compromise. Regarding the disbursement of the receivership amount, the plaintiff is 84 years of age, has filled multiple interim applications (IA), and has no source of income or medical expenses.
• The counsel submitted that defendant No. 2 must be removed as the receiver and the plaintiff should be assigned as the receiver of the properties.

RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

• “Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005.”[2]
• “Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908(concerning settlement agreements).”[3]
• “Order XLI, Rule 22 and Order XLIII, Rule 1-A (2) of the CPC (concerning cross-appeals)”. [4]

JUDGEMENT (RATIO DECIDENDI)

Supreme Court changed the settlement agreement based on the Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma case, 2020. Plaintiff and defendant no. 2 get 1/3 share of father’s properties under the Hindu Succession Act. Includes ancestral and self-acquired properties of Late Shree Kumar Sahoo

CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that –

• The SC of India in its final verdict states that Daughters get 1/3 share under the Hindu Succession Act, 2005.
• Settlement agreement was invalid as it was held without the consent of the plaintiff under the Code of Civil Procedure.
• SC decision: Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 settlement is invalid.
• Daughters are entitled to 1/3 share of both the properties i.e. ancestral as well as self-acquired under the Hindu Succession Act, 2005.
• Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 settlement agreement is void under CPC rules.

REFERENCES

Important Cases Referred

• • “Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma, 2020[5].”
  • “Bai Chanchal and others v. Syed Jalaluddin and others, 1970[6].”
  • “Byram Pestonji Gariwala v. Union Bank of India, 1992[7].”
  • “D.S Lakshmaiah and Another v. L. Bal Subramanyam and Another, 2003.”[8]
  • “Jineshwar Das (dead) by LR.s. and others v. Jagrani (Smt) and Another, 2003[9].”
  • “Pushpa Devi Bhagat (Dead) through LR. Sadhna Rai (Smt) v. Rajender Singh and Others, 2006.[10]”

Important Statutes Referred

• Code of Civil Procedure,1980
• Hindu Succession Act,1956
• Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act,2005

[1] (2023) SCC 36

[2] PK Das, Hindu Succession (Universal Law Publishing).

[3] CK Thakker and MC Thakker, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (2014).

[4] Thakker CK and Thakker MC, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (2014)

[5] Reported in 2020 SCC

[6] Reported in 1970 3 SCC 124 at para 8.

[7] Reported in 1992, 1 SCC 31 at para 38-41.

[8] Reported in 2003, 10 SCC 310 para at 18.

[9] Reported in 2003, 11 SCC 372 at para 7-8.

[10] Reported in 2006, 5 SCC 566 at para 18,19,23-25.