Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.29 seconds)Prakash vs Phulavati . on 16 October, 2015
Despite the amendment
made to Section 6 of the Act, having regard to the dictum
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash vs.
Phulavati supra, as the father of the plaintiff died long ago
i.e., sometime in the year 1975, the amended Section 6 of
the Act would not apply. In the circumstances, on
application of the principles of notional partition, plaintiff
would be entitled to one-fourth share in the said items.
Hence, substantial question of law is accordingly answered
by holding that the plaintiff is entitled to one-fourth share
in the said properties and that her marriage would not, in
any way, deprive her of the said properties as was the
27
case under Section 6A of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956
(Karnataka Amendment). In view of the Parliament
subsequently amending Section 6 of the Act with effect
from 09.09.2005, the Parliamentary amendment would
prevail over the said amendment. This is on the basis of
Article 254 of the Constitution. Hence, the award of one-
fourth share to the plaintiff by the first appellate court in
respect of item Nos.3 and 4 is just and proper and the
substantial question of law is accordingly answered.
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Article 254 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
1