Upholding the right of a girl child in the joint property of a Hindu family, the Supreme Court in yet another important judgment ruled that if she is discriminated against, she can reopen the case for partition of the property to claim her rightful share even after a decree is passed by the cour
t.
The apex court thus allowed a relief to Prema from Karnataka’s Srirangapatna area in her 22-year-old legal battle for 2/7th share in joint family property for which she had filed a partition suit way back in 1989 in a local court.
A bench of Justices G.S. Singhvi and K.S. Radhakrishnan while defining the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act and an amendment brought by Karnataka in it in 1990 to prevent discrimination against daughters in joint Hindu family, directed the civil judge in Srirangapatna to decide her case afresh for claiming her share.
“If the final decree has not been passed so far, the trial court shall do so within six months on production of the copy of this judgment and if final decree has already been passed, then the trial judge shall amend the same in terms of this judgment and give effect to the right acquired by her under section 6A of the Karnataka Act, 1994.”
Though the Karnataka Assembly had passed the amendment in Section 6A in 1990, the state had notified it only in 1994 after receiving the President’s assent.
The top court set aside the orders of the trial judge and the Karnataka HC rejecting Prema’s plea for 2/7th share of the property under the amended law on the ground that the legislation could not have the retrospective effect as her suit was filed way back in 1989.
The apex court rejected the stand taken by the trial court and the HC, saying any law brought to remove “discrimination practised against unmarried daughter” in a joint Hindu family had to be read in the spirit the amendment was brought to provide her equal right under the Constitution’s Articles 14 and 15. “The trial court and the HC committed serious error by dismissing the application filed by Prema for grant of equal share in the property in terms of Section 6A of Karnataka’s amended Act,” the apex court held.
To enforce the right of girl child in a joint Hindu family, the apex court particularly referred to its two judgments — Mool Chand case, 1995 and Sai Reddy case, 1991 — in which it was laid down that if a girl child had been discriminated in the preliminary decree of partition, she has every right to reopen the case for “correcting the partition decree” to get her rightful share.
The court clarified that in the two verdicts, it had been made clear that the trial judge could order “variation” in the share specified in the preliminary decree to correct any error in fixing the share of a daughter or similarly placed disadvantageous person in the joint Hindu family.