Writ - praying to declare that explanation to Section 6 of the amendment Act of 39 of 2005, Explanation: for the purpose of this Section partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court as unconstitutional and the same is liable to be struck down and etc; -2015 KAR(2015) msklawreports 





"(i) Whether Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by theAmendment Act, 2005 is prospective or retrospective in operation?



(ii) Whether Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by theAmendment Act, 2005 applies to daughters born prior to 17.6.1956?



(iii) Whether Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by theAmendment Act, 2005 applies to daughters born after 17.6.1956 and prior to 9.9.2005?



(iv) Whether Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by theAmendment Act, 2005 applies only to daughters born after 9.9.2005?



(v) Whether the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Vaishali Ganorkar is per in curium of Gandori Koteshwaramma and others?"

 In addressing an argument that the Explanation to Section 6 clearly provides that partition means any partition made by execution of a deed duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 or a partition effected by a decree of a Court and therefore, if an oral partition had taken place before 20.12.2004, such partition would not be saved either by the proviso to sub-section (1) or sub- section (5) of Section 6. And hence an oral partition effected of coparcenery property even if effected in the year 1957, would not be saved and therefore Section 6 must be held to be retrospective with effect from 17.6.1956, is met thus :







"45. Though the argument may prima facie appear to be attractive, it does not recognize the distinction between an oral partition or partition by unregistered document which is not followed by partition by metes and bounds on the one hand and oral partition or partition by unregistered document which was acted upon by physical partition of the properties by metes and bounds and entries made in the public record about such physical partition by entering the names of sharers as individual owner/s in the concerned public record, (such as records of the Municipal Corporation or the Property Registers maintained by the Government) on the other hand. It is only where an oral partition or partition by unregistered document is not followed by partition by metes and bounds, evidenced by entries in the public records that a daughter would be in a position to contend that the property still remains coparcenary property on the date of coming into force of the Amendment Act."







This bench respectfully endorses the said view and hence it is not necessary to address the constitutional validity or otherwise of the provision as sought to be claimed by the petitioners.



Further, the second prayer in the writ petition is again fully answered by the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court. Though, this bench is bound by the Division Bench judgment of this court in Pushpalatha. However, the persuasive value and the reasoning of the judgment of a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court with specific reference to Pushpalatha, can hardly be overlooked. In any event, if the petitioners should succeed on the strength of the oral partition set up, the second relief prayed for is not relevant to the petitioners. And as already stated, a Full bench of the Karnataka High Court having been seized of the very question, having deferred the hearing on the issue, pending the decision of the Apex Court on a challenge to the decision in Pushpalatha's case, the same is not addressed, independently.



The petition stands disposed of.













































Popular posts from this blog









Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS





















  partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it








Read more










Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports





















  Law  :- Sec.482 of Cr.P.C.  Sub  :- Quash the criminal proceedings  Offence  :-Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination  (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997  Summary : -   The investigation revealed that  clandestinely question paper Part-B has been removed from the  exam hall and it was passed on to Accused No.1 for eventually  facilitating in malpractice. However, the police after investigation,  filed the charge-sheet.    The petitioner (A-2) along with A-1 is sought to be proceeded  against under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination  (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (Act for  short).       Section 5 of the Act reads as under:  Prevention of leakage by person entrusted with  examination works:  No person who is entrusted with any work pertaining to a  public examination shall, except where he is permitted by  virtue of his duties so to do, directly or indirectly divulge or  cause to be divulged or make known to any o








Read more










Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS





















        Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.       "Order 38, Rule 7 C.P.C. provides that the attachment under Order 38, Rule 5 shall be made in the manner provided for the attachment of property in execution of a decree. It is trite, the attachment envisaged under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC is an attachment before judgment. The restriction found by the learned Single Judge that under Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.   The attachment of debts due to the defendant from third party could be attached before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS   








Read more