Introduction:

In the case of Prafula M Bhat & Others v. Saraswati Shastri & Others (RFA No. 100103 of 2014), the Karnataka High Court ruled that daughters born before a partition that took place before December 20, 2004, cannot claim rights in the father’s share of ancestral property after the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act. Justice Anant Ramanathe Hegde dismissed the appeal filed by the daughters, who sought equal coparcenary rights and challenged a gift deed executed by their deceased father, Mahadev, in favour of his second wife, Saraswati Shastri. The court held that the legislative intent behind the 2005 amendment was to preserve partitions made before the cutoff date, and therefore, daughters born before such partitions cannot be treated at par with those born after. The judgment clarifies the extent of retroactive application of Section 6 of the Act and reinforces that partitions finalized before December 20, 2004, are immune from challenge.

Arguments of Both Sides and Court’s Judgment:

The plaintiffs, daughters of Mahadev, contended that the partition of 1994, in which Mahadev and his two sons divided the ancestral property, was invalid as they were not allotted shares. They argued that Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, which grants daughters equal rights as coparceners, is retroactive and should be applied to their case. They also asserted that the properties allocated to Mahadev in the 1994 partition should be treated as coparcenary property after the 2005 amendment, thereby entitling them to a share. Additionally, they challenged the validity of the gift deed executed by Mahadev in favour of his second wife, alleging fraud and forgery.

The respondents, including Mahadev’s second wife and his two sons, countered that the plaintiffs could not claim coparcenary rights in the properties assigned to their father under the 1994 partition because Section 6(5) of the Act explicitly protects partitions executed before December 20, 2004. They maintained that since the partition was legally registered, it was beyond challenge. Furthermore, they argued that the gift deed was valid, as Mahadev had the absolute right to dispose of his share of the property. The defence emphasized that Mahadev’s decision to gift the property was logical, given that he was cared for by his second wife while his daughters were married and living separately.

The High Court upheld the respondents’ arguments, ruling that the 1994 partition was legally binding and that daughters who were alive at the time of such partitions could not later claim coparcenary rights. It clarified that Section 6(1)(b) of the Act, which grants daughters equal coparcenary rights, does not override Section 6(5), which safeguards partitions made before the cutoff date. The court emphasized that legislative intent was to prevent disruption of settled partitions. It also upheld the validity of the gift deed, affirming that Mahadev had the right to dispose of his separate property. The judgment reiterated that while Shastri Hindu law allows a son born after partition to acquire a share in the father’s property, the same principle does not extend to daughters under the amended Act.