Thursday, 07, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Jaipal Singh vs Roshni Andors
2022 Latest Caselaw 6610 Raj/2

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 6610 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 12 October, 2022

Rajasthan High Court
Jaipal Singh vs Roshni Andors on 12 October, 2022
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19123/2015

Jaipal Singh adopted son of Trilok Chand, R/o Lala Mandi, Tehsil
Buhana, District Jhunjhunu.
                                          ----Petitioner/Defendant No.1


                                  Versus


1. Roshni W/o Ishwar Singh, R/o Sirohi Brahali, Tehsil Narnol,
District Mahendragarh.
                                                    ----Respondent-Plaintiff

2. Reshmi W/o Ramchandra R/o Dunwas, Tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar.

3. Pratap S/o Arjun Ram Jat.

4. Heera Lal S/o Arjun Ram Jat All R/o Sirohi Brahali, Tehsil Narnol, District Mahendragarh.

5. Chand Kaur D/o Arjun Lal W/o Prasadi Mal

6. Bhawani D/o Arjun Ram W/o Rameshwar Lal

7. Rajkaur D/o Arjun Ram W/o Gyarsi Lal All R/o Shekhpur , Tehsil Kotputli , District Jaipur

8. Lado W/o Nagar

9. Shishupal S/o Nagar

10. Ghotaram S/o Nagar

11. Kitab D/o Nagar

12. Santra D/o Nagar

13. Rajkaur D/o Nagar

14. Bhateri D/o Nagar All R/o Lala Mandi, Tehsil Buhana, District Jhunjhunu.

15. Samjo D/o Gokulchand

16. Sajna W/o Ummed Singh

17. Mahesh S/o Ummed Singh

18. Rajesh S/o Ummed Singh

19. Manoj S/o Ummed Singh All R/o Lala Mandi, Tehsil Buhana, District Jhunjhunu.

[CW-19123/2015]

20. Rajasthan State Through Tehsildar Khetri Jhunjhunu.

----Respondents/Defendants

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Kuldeep Bhatia, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Anand Sharma, Adv. with Mr.Naman Deep Singh, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR Order 12/10/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant

challenging the judgment and decree dated 05.07.2004 passed by

the Sub-Division Officer, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu in a suit filed

by the respondent No.1 seeking declaration/partition and

permanent injunction. The judgment and decree dated 05.07.2004

was challenged by the petitioner before the Revenue Appellate

Authority, Sikar Camp Jhunjhunu and the same came to be

decided and dismissed vide order dated 27.03.2006 and the

petitioner further challenged both these orders before the Board of

Revenue and the Board of Revenue has also dismissed the appeal

filed by the petitioner vide order dated 07.12.2015.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Mr.Anand

Sharma submitted that initially the interim order was passed by

this Court on account of the judgment passed by the Apex Court

in the case of Prakash and Ors. Vs.Phoolvati and Ors. reported

in (2016) 2 SCC 36, wherein it was held that amendment to

Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was made in 2005

and the provision has a prospective right, wherein the daughters

of the Co-parcener have right in the co-parcenary property only in

the event of co-parceners death having occurred subsequent to

2005.

[CW-19123/2015]

Learned counsel submitted that the said judgment of the

Apex Court was referred to the Larger Bench and the Larger

Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs.

Rakesh Sharma & Ors. reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1 overruled

the judgment passed in the case of Prakash and Ors.

Vs.Phoolvati and Ors. (supra) and now the Apex Court has

made it clear that the provision contained in substituting Section 6

of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confers status of co-parcener of

the daughter born before or after the amendment in the same

manner as son with the same rights and liabilities and further the

rights can be claimed by the daughter born prior to amendment

with effect from date of amendment 09.09.2005 with savings of

past transactions as provided in Section 6(1) and Section 6(5),

disposition, alienation or partition, which had taken place before

20.12.2004.

The Apex Court further held that since the right of

coparcenary daughter is by birth, it is therefore not at all

necessary that father of daughter should be alive as on

09.09.2005.

Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the legal

position.

This Court accordingly finds that in view of the judgment

passed by the Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs.

Rakesh Sharma & Ors. (supra) the present writ petition is

devoid of any force and the same is dismissed.

Interim order shall stands vacated.

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J Monika/32

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter