Reported By: Amruta Parwar

The Supreme Court in the matter of Prashant Kumar Sahoo & ors v/s Charulatat Sahoo & ors held that if a suit of partition is pending and a final order has not been passed and during such period if a law is amended the party can obtain its benefits. The court also held that there must be consent and signature of all concerned parties to declare a settlement valid. If the settlement deed is not consented to by all the parties of the concerned partition suit, then such a settlement deed cannot be legal.

Background of the case & contentions of the parties

The matter in the present case is about the partition of an ancestral and self-acquired property of the late Mr. Sahoo. Mr. Sahoo had three children namely Charulata [respondent no.1], Santilata [respondent no.2], and Prafulla [ appellant]. In the year 1980, respondent no 1 filed a suit for partition of the said property before the trial court wherein respondents 1 & 2 were awarded 1/6th share of the ancestral property and the appellant was entitled to 4/6th of the ancestral property. On the other hand, respondents and appellant were entitled to 1/3 each of the self-acquired property including the mesne profits.

The appellant filed an appeal before the high court contending that all the properties of his deceased father are ancestral property and stated that he had entered into an agreement with respondent no 2 where respondent no 2 waived her right to share in the favor of the appellant in return of 50,000 /- [ fifty thousand rupees]. On the other hand, respondent, no. 1 also filed an appeal challenging the validity of the settlement deed between respondent no.2 and the appellant. 

The High Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant and declared the settlement deed invalid. Aggrieved by this the Appellant filed an appeal in the Supreme Court and argued that the amendment of 2005 to the Hindu succession act 1956 cannot be applied to the present case after so many years and as per the settlement deed the right to share in the property of the respondent no. 2 is extinguished and the share is transferred to the appellant.

The Supreme Court’s Observations

1. The court relied on the judgment passed in the case of Vineeta Sharma v/s Rakesh Sharma and Ors where it was held that amended section 6 of the Hindu Marriage Act giving coparcenary rights to daughters from 2005 will also apply to cases where the male coparcener dies prior 2005. It was also held that during the pendency of the partition suit if any legislative amendment is brought in which alters the rights of the parties can be taken into consideration while passing the final decree. 
2. The court also observed that the settlement agreement must be in writing and signed by all the parties to the suit.

The Court held

1. In view of the amendment of 2005 the court observed that the preliminary decree can be varied in the final decree proceedings and the parties benefiting from the amendments [the respondents in the present matter] can request the trial court to take cognizance of the amendment. 
2. The settlement deed was declared invalid as it was not signed by all concerned parties.
3. The preliminary decree of the trial court is modified to the extent that daughters are entitled to 1/3 share in all properties.

Rights of the parties after the amendment of 2005 to the Hindu Marriage Act

After the amendment of 2005 to the Hindu Marriage Act daughters have equal rights over the coparcenary property as the son. The daughters are equal coparceners to the ancestral property and share equal liabilities as the son.  since the suit was pending during and after the amendment and the final order was not passed the supreme court held that the parties could seek the benefits of the amended law if it applies to them and the preliminary decree can be varied in the final proceedings.