The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held that a daughter’s share in ancestral property can be reconsidered even after a preliminary decree, if the final partition has not yet taken place and the law has subsequently changed in her favour.
A Division Bench observed that courts are empowered to pass a second preliminary decree in partition suits where later events or legal developments alter the rights of parties.
Case Background
The dispute arose from a family partition suit filed in 1988 over properties belonging to Vale Mareppa. Initially, the trial court granted a share only to the widow, while denying any portion to the daughter, Mandlem Veeramma @ Eramma.
However, in 2003, the High Court modified that ruling and granted equal shares to the widow, daughter and son in Mareppa’s half share of the property. That decree later attained finality after challenges before the Supreme Court, including review and curative petitions, were dismissed.
Years later, during pending final decree proceedings, purchasers claiming rights through the daughter and her legal heirs sought modification of the preliminary decree. They relied on the 2005 amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act and the Supreme Court ruling in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, which recognised daughters as coparceners with equal rights in ancestral property.
The Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Balaji Medamalli examined whether the earlier decree could still be altered.
The court noted that the daughter was alive when the amended Section 6 came into force on September 9, 2005, and no final partition by metes and bounds had taken place before December 20, 2004.
Referring extensively to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Vineeta Sharma, the Bench observed that daughters are entitled to equal rights in coparcenary property “notwithstanding that a preliminary decree has been passed,” so long as final decree proceedings remain pending
The judges also rejected the argument that the daughter could not claim rights because her father had died before the Hindu Succession Act came into force in 1956.
“The date of death of the father is not relevant,” the Bench observed while interpreting the amended Section 6 and the law laid down in Vineeta Sharma.
The court further reiterated that more than one preliminary decree can be passed in partition matters if later events change the entitlement of parties.
The Bench observed that the daughter would be entitled to equal share rights under the amended law and examined whether the preliminary decree required modification.
The High Court examined whether the preliminary decree passed in 2003 required modification in light of the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act and the law laid down in Vineeta Sharma, while final decree proceedings in the partition suit remain pending.
