Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15-O-(ii). In Sheela Devi (supra), it was held that, by the time the HS Amended Act came into force, if succession opened by notional partition under Section 6 of HS Act by death of father, the daughter who got right by birth by virtue of the Act, cannot be considered as Coparcener.

15-O-iii. On the aspect whether notional partition by virtue of legal fiction can be considered as actual partition, the Apex Court in Gurupad v Hirabai -observed that the fiction created by Explanation I of Section 6 HS Act,1956 has to be given its full and due effect. The Court in this regard quoted a passage from East End Dwellings Co Ltd. Vs. Finsbury Borough Council , by Lord Asquith that-If you are bidden to treat an imaginary state of affairs as real, you must also imagine as real, the consequences and incidents which, if the putative state of affairs had in fact existed, must inevitably have flowed from or accomplished it, and if the statute says that you must imagine a certain state of affairs, it cannot be interpreted to mean that having done so, you must cause or permit your imagination to boggle when it comes to the inevitable corollaries of the state of affairs. The Apex Court therefrom interpreted the concept of notional partition by legal fiction used in the Section 6 to mean that, a partition had taken place between the deceased and other coparceners immediately before his death. This assumption, as per the Court, is irrevocable once made and all the consequences that would flow from a logical partition would follow; which means that the share of the heirs must be ascertained on the basis that they had separated from one another and had received a share in the partition which had taken place during the lifetime of the deceased. 15-O-iv. No doubt it was in the context of benefiting a female it was specifically noted by the Court in the case that all the reforms that had taken place earlier were with a view to improve the property rights of women and a narrow approach would lead to taking a step backwards. The Court went on to mention that it would render fruitless the social reform that has enabled Hindu women to acquire an equal status with men and as such the interpretation that be preferred should be the one that furthers the intention of the legislature and remedies the injustice from which Hindu women have suffered over the years. This approach of the Court of all the consequences that would flow from a logical partition would follow for notional partition was later reaffirmed in State of Maharashtra Vs. Narayan Rao Sham Rao Deshmukh . 15-O-v). It is pertinent to mention here that, a narrow approach has been also followed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in P Govinda Reddy Vs. Golla Obulamma and Yethirejulu Neelaya Vs. Mudummuru Ramaswami and earlier to it by the High Court of Bombay in Sriram Bai Vs. Kalgonda that, though from the concept of notional partition U/Section 6 HS Act, the basic principle has been to presume that a partition had been affected only for a specific purpose which is to ascertain the interest of the deceased coparcener as available for succession. It was further presumed that in this particular approach once the said interest was ascertained there was no need to allot shares to the other members, whether male or female, to the family. Even from that approach, for not used the words sister of Coparcener, but used only the words daughter of Coparcener, once father died and his share by notional partition divided for succession opened, there is no coparcenary of father to claim after commencement of the HS Amended Act,2005 for a daughter as if a son of right by birth.

17.(v). In Sai Reddy(supra) once it is held by the Apex Court as the partition that the legislature has in mind in the present case(under the AP HS Amended Act) is undoubtedly a partition completed in all respects and which has brought about an irreversible situation-the notional partition under Section 6 of the HS act by legal fiction is not mere severance in status, but as if actual partition that also brings out an irreversible situation. In the expression of Sai Reddy (supra), the notional partition concept under Section 6 of HS Act, 1956 did not fall for consideration as the HS AP Amended Act provisions given prevalence with non obstanti clause in Section 29 (A-C) of the HS AP Amended Act for giving overriding effect irrespective of what is contained in section 6 of the HS Act,1956. In Sai Reddy(supra), the Apex Court thus only interpreted the wording of Section 29A-C of the AP HS Amended Act of actual partition by meets and bounds, in saying preliminary decree since only defines rights and not an actual partition by meets and bounds, the shares can be redefined once under the AP HS Amended Act, the daughter became coparcener before passing of final decree. The expressions of the Apex Court in Anardevi and Sheela Devi(supra)- cannot be said running contra to the principle laid down in Sai Reddy (supra), even by any stretch of imagination.

17.(xii). There is nothing came for discussion and consideration in Ganduri Koteswaramma(supra) as to the daughters were married or not by the time HS AP Amended Act,1986 came into force and if married and the same not applicable to them for preliminary decree not considered them as coparceners; whether-notional partition concept of Section 6 of HS Act is a bar or not to get the benefits of the HS Amended Act,2005. The earlier expressions in Anardevi and Sheeladevi(supra) were also not considered on the scope of the Amended Act is only prospective and the concept of notional partition defined in Section 6 of HS Act, opens the succession. It was not even considered whether the concept of notional partition defined in Section 6 of HS Act,1956 falls within the meaning of the word partition used in Section 6 of the HS Amended Act,2005.

18.(iv). When notional partition by virtue of legal fiction created by Explanation I of Section 6 of the HS Act,1956 has to be considered as actual partition by given its full and due effect to the fiction as held by the Apex Court in Gurupad and Narayan Rao Sham Rao Deshmukh(supra), from that the basic principle has been to presume that a partition had been affected even for a specific purpose which is to ascertain the interest of the deceased father coparcener as available for succession and once the said interest was ascertained, even remaining brother coparceners continue; even death of father taken place before the HS Amended Act,2005 came into force and by legal fiction of notional partition, the father`s undivided share in the coparcenary interest is ascertained for the limited purpose of its separation, whether the daughter after the HS Amended Act came into force from continuation of remaining coparcenary by her brothers, can claim as coparcener with them from any right by birth accrued after the Amended Act came into force, is the question?. For that the answer is even in negative for the reasons discussed supra and also for the reasons that, when Section 6 of the HS Act,1956 speaks notional partition on death of any male member of coparcenary left behind him female relatives etc., specified in Class-1 of the schedule of the Act, by virtue of legal fiction his interest in coparcenary devolve by succession and once it is the father that died and therefrom by virtue of notional partition, there is no coparcenary of father, even brothers continue the coparcenary with the remaining property, so far as daughter concerned, after coming in to force of the Section 6 of the HS Amended Act,2005, to claim right by birth, there is no coparcenary subsisting of her father, from wording of the amended section is the daughter of a coparcener and not even sister of coparcener, much less specifically provided to claim in the deemed coparcenary of brothers even after death of father, where notional partition concept of Section 6 of the HS Act,1956 applies. Needless to say once Section 29A HS AP Amended Act was applicable for which notional partition not a bar and therefrom any right already vested on daughter as coparcener, that wont divest after coming in to force of the Section 6 of the HS Amended Act,2005.