Dwarika vs Sushil Bai @ Sushila
2022 Latest Caselaw 708 Chatt

          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                               Order Sheet
                            SA No. 10 of 2021
1. Dwarika S/o Makhan Verma Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Katai, Tehsil
   Navaragh, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh,
2. Khemram S/o Makhan Verma Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Katai,
   Tehsil Navaragh, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh,
3. Malikram S/o Makhan Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Katai, Tehsil
   Navaragh, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh,


                                                               ---- appellants.
                                 Versus


1. Sushil Bai @ Sushila W/o Harnarayan @ Kamalnarayan Verma Aged
   About 45 Years R/o Village Katai, Tehsil Navaragh, District Bemetara,
   Chhattisgarh,
2. Khemin Bai W/o Late Ramlal Verma Aged About 64 Years R/o Village
   Katai, Tehsil Navaragh, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh .....(Defendant No.
   4),
3. Munnibai @ Shyamkali W/o Rajendra Verma Aged About 50 Years R/o
   Village Buchipur, Tehsil Navaragh, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh .....
   (Defendant No. 5),
4. Kaushilya W/o Devi Verma Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Nagdha,
   Tehsil Navaragh, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh .....(Defendant No. 6),
5. Hemant S/o Dwarika Verma Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Katai, Tehsil
   Navaragh, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh .....(Defendant No. 7),
6. Laxman S/o Khemram Verma Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Katai,
   Tehsil Navaragh, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh .....(Defendant No. 8),
7. Birendra S/o Malikram Verma Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Katai,
   Tehsil Navaragh, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh .....(Defendant No. 9),
8. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, District- Bemetara,
   Chhattisgarh.
                                                            ---- Respondents

10-2-2022 Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, counsel for the appellants.

Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, Govt. Advocate for respondent No.8/State.

Heard on admission.

Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the First Appellate Court has not appreciated the legal provisions relating to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. He would further submit that as per the Hindu Succession Act, amended in 2005 the daughter who was born prior to amendment is not entitled to get her share. Subsequently, Honorable Supreme Court clarified this issue in the case of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma, reported in 2020 (9) SCC 1, in paragraph No.130(ii) and held daughter as co-parcener but shall not affect or invalidate any disposition or alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of the property which had taken place before 20-12- 2004. In the present case, partition has taken place in the year 1997, as such it cannot be disturbed by the judgment and decree passed by the First appellate Court.

The issue is arguable, therefore, the case is admitted on the following substantial question of law:

" Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in granting partition to the plaintiff ignoring the provisions of Section 6(i) of the Hindu Succession Act as amened in the year 2005?."

Considering the fact that the First Appellate Court has not properly applied the provisions of Section 6 (I) of the Hindu Succession Act amended in the year 2005 as interpreted by the Honorable Supreme Court in case of Vineeta (supra) and the balance of convenience lies in favour of the appellants as the partition has already taken place, as such the appellants may suffer irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in terms of money, therefore, judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court shall remain stayed, till the next date of hearing.

On payment of process fee within one week, issue notice to respondents No. 1 to 7 by ordinary and registered mode along with a copy of this order. Notice be made returnable within six weeks.

List this case after six weeks.

Sd/-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

Raju