Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(ii) at a partition in such a Joint Hindu Family the coparcenary property shall be so divided as to allot to a daughter the same share as is allottable to a son;

Provided that the share which a predeceased son or a pre-deceased daughter would have got at the partition if he or she had been alive at the time of the partition shall be allotted to the surviving child of such predeceased son or of such pre-deceased daughter;

Provided further that the share allottable to the pre-deceased child of a pre-deceased son or of a pre-deceased daughter, if such child had been alive at the time of the partition, shall be allotted to the child of such predeceased child of the pre-deceased son or of the pre-deceased daughter as the case may be;

10. Now we have to consider the meaning of the words "partition which had been effected" occurring in Clause (iv) of S. 29-A of the Hindu Succession Act. Can it be said that by means of the passing of the preliminary decree by a competent civil Court, a partition is deemed to have been effected from the date of the filing of the suit by one of the sons? The law on this point is very clear.

11. In a suit for partition of the Hindu Joint Family property, the property not being of the kind referred to in sub-rule (1) of O. 20, R. 18, a preliminary decree may be passed as provided by sub-rule (2); and for the purpose of working out the preliminary decree and adjusting the shares, the final decree may give one coparcener a charge over the share of another as an alternative to depriving a coparcener of some property. In a suit for partition, there are normally two decrees; (1) a preliminary decree, and (2) a final decree. Any order passed between preliminary and final decree is an interlocutory order although it may finally decide the rights of the parties so far as the trial Court is concerned. Admittedly in this case no final decree is yet passed. The unmarried daughters are already on record and provision was directed to be made for their marriage expenses in the preliminary decree itself.

18. The lower Court has not taken into consideration the view expressed by the" Supreme Court in Phoolchand v. Gopal Lal,' . In that case, the Supreme Court while considering 0.20, R, 18 and the definition of preliminary decree' as defined in S. 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, held as follows (at p. 1473 of AIR):

"We are of opinion that there is nothing in the Code of Civil Procedure which prohibits the passing of more than one preliminary decree if circumstances justify the same and that it may be necessary to do so particularly in partition suits when after the preliminary decree some parties die and shares of other parties are thereby augmented. . We have already said that it is not disputed that in partition suits the Court can do so even after the preliminary decree is passed. It would in our opinion be convenient to the Court and advantageous to the parties, specially in partition suits, to have disputed rights finally settled and specification of shares in the preliminary decree varied before a final decree is prepared. If this is done, there is a clear determination of the rights of the parties to the suit on the question in dispute and we see no difficulty in holding that in such cases there is a decree deciding these disputed rights; if so there is no reason why a second preliminary decree correcting the shares in a partition suit cannot be passed by the Court. So far therefore as partition suits are concerned, we have no doubt if an event transpires after the preliminary decree which necessitates a change in shares, the Court can and should do so; and if there is a dispute in that behalf, the order of the Court deciding that dispute and making variation in shares specified in the preliminary decree already passed is a decree in itself which would be liable to appeal ..... There is no prohibition in the Code of Civil Procedure against passing a second preliminary decree in Such circumstances and we do not see why we should rule out a second preliminary decree in such circumstances only on the ground that the Code of Civil Procedure does not contemplate such a possibility. In any case if two views are possible -- and obviously this is so because the High Courts have differed on the question -- we would prefer the view taken by the High Courts have differed on the question -- we would prefer the view taken by the High Courts which hold that a second preliminary decree can be passed, particularly in partition suits where parties have died after the preliminary decree and shares specified in the preliminary decree have to be adjusted."

19. Since the parties have invoked the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide their rights in a partition suit, their rights can be considered at any stage till the passing of the final decree. Till the final decree as stated above is passed in a partition suit, it is well settled that the suit is said to be pending, till the final decree is signed by the Judge after engrossing the same on the stamps. In view of the insertion of S. 29-A in the Hindu Succession Act by Act (13 of 1986) the statute conferred a right on the daughters and they become coparceners in their own right in the same manner as sons and have the same rights in the coparcenary property. In this case, admittedly the daughters are already on record and, therefore, they are entitled to claim a right and request the Court to pass a final decree by taking into account the altered situation.' It must be made clear that the alteration of the shares as conferred under the Amendment Act to the daughters can only be done so long as the final decree has not been passed. In the case of registration of the partition deed, it is deemed to have been effected and it is complete partition. But in the case of a partition that has to be made by a Court, it must be deemed that it has been effected only after the passing of the final" decree. The meaning of the words "a partition which had been effected" occurring in S. 29A(iv) must be construed as follows: