Holding

When a partition suit is pending and a subsequent statutory amendment enhances a party’s right, the court may modify the preliminary decree and grant the enhanced share even in final decree proceedings.

Summary

The appellant, an unmarried daughter, sought to increase her share in a joint Hindu family property after the Karnataka legislature inserted Section 6A into the Hindu Succession Act, granting daughters equal coparcenary rights. A preliminary decree in the partition suit had already fixed her share at 1/28th, but the final decree was still pending. The trial court and High Court dismissed her application under CPC sections 151‑153, holding the amendment non‑retrospective and the preliminary decree final. The Supreme Court held that a statutory amendment affecting parties’ rights before the final decree can be given effect, allowing the court to modify the preliminary decree and award the enhanced share. Consequently, the appellant’s application was allowed and the lower courts’ orders set aside.

Issues considered

Whether a statutory amendment (Section 6A) granting equal coparcenary rights to unmarried daughters can be applied to a partition suit whose preliminary decree is already passed but final decree is pending.
Whether the amendment is retrospective for the purpose of enhancing the appellant's share.
Whether the appellant can seek amendment of the preliminary decree under CPC sections 151, 152, 153 after the final decree proceedings have commenced.
Whether the finality of a preliminary decree precludes modification in light of a subsequent change in law.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 151, s. 152, s. 153, s. 97
Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 15(1), s. Article 15(3)
Hindu Succession Act, 1956s. 6, s. 6A, s. 6B, s. 6C
Hindu Succession (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1990 (Karnataka Act No.23 of 1994)s. 6A, s. 6B, s. 6C

Subjects

partition suitpreliminary decreefinal decreeHindu Succession Actunmarried daughter rightsSection 6ACPCArticle 15(3)gender equalitycoparcenary property

Judgment

[2011] 8 S.C.R. 55

PR EMA A
v.
NANJE GOWDA AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 2481 of 2005)

MAY 10, 2011
B
[G.S. SINGHVI AND K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.]

Hindu
, Law:
Hindu Succession Act, 1956- s.6A - Hindu Succession c
(Kamataka Amendment) Act, 1990 [Kamataka Act No.23 of
1994) - Preamble and ss.1 and 2 - Modification of
preliminary decree in final decree proceedings - Scope -
Joint family property - Respondent no. 1 filed partition suit -
Preliminary decree passed by trial court whereby plaintiff- D
respondent no. 1 and defendant no. 3 were held entitled to 21
7th share whereas defendant nos. 1, 4, 5 and defendant no. 6-
daughter (appellant) were held entitled to 1128th share each
- Preliminary decree confirmed by first appellate court and
High Court - Respondent No. 1 instituted final decree E
proceedings - Meanwhile the Kamataka legislature made a
State amendment in the Hindu Succession Act vide
Karnataka Act No.23 of 1994 by inserting s.6A whereby
unmarried daughters were given equal rights in co-parcenary
property - Appellant filed application uni:Jer ss.151, 152 and
153 of CPC for amendment of the preliminary decree and for F
grant of declaration that in terms of s. 6A she was entitled to
211th share (higher share) in the suit property, claiming that
she· had not married till the enforcement of the Kamataka Act
No.23 of 1994 - Trial Court dismissed the appellant's
application holding that amendment made in the Act same G
cannot be relied upon for amending the decree, which had
become final - High Court upheld the order of trial court -
On appeal, held: By the preliminary decree, shares of the

55 H
56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 8 S.C.R.

A parties were determined but the actual partition/division had
not taken place - Therefore, the proceedings of the suit
instituted by respondent No. 1 cannot be treated to have
become final so far as the actual partition of the joint family
properties is concerned and it was open to the appellant to
B claim enhancement of her share in the joint family properties
because she had not married till the enforcement of the
Kamataka Act No.23 of.1994 - By virtue of the preliminary
decree passed by the trial Court, which was confirmed by the
lower appellate Court and the High Court, the issues decided
c therein will be deemed to have become final but as the
partition suit is required to be decided in stages, the same
can be regarded as fully and completely decided only when
the final dec(ee is passed - If in the interregnum any party to
the partition suit dies, then his/her share is required to be
allotted to the surviving parties and this can be done in the
0
final decree proceedings - Likewise, if law governing the
parties is amended before conclusion of the final decree
proceedings, the party benefited by such amendment can
make a request to the Court to take cognizance of the
amendment and give effect to the same - If the rights of the
E parties to the suit change due to other reasons, the Court
ceased with the final decree proceedings is not only entitled
but is duty bound to take notice of such change and pass
appropriate order - In the instant case, the final decree
proceedings were. pending the day s. 6A came into force -
F Therefore, the appellant had every right to seek enlargement
of her share and there is no reason why the Court should
hesitate in giving effect to an amendment made by the State
legislature in exercise of the power vested in it under Article
15(3) of the Constitution - Consequently, the application filed
G by the appellant under ss.151, 152 and 153 CPC is allowed
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - ss. 151, 152 and 153 -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 15(3).

Respondent no.1 filed suit for partition and separate
H
PREMA v. NANJE GOWDA AND ORS. 57

possession of his share in the joint family property. The A
preliminary decree was passed on 11.8.1992 whereby the
trial court held that plaintiff-respondent no.1 and
defendant no.3 were entitled to 2/7th share whereas
defendant nos. 1, 4, 5 and defendant no.6-daughter
(appellant) were entitled to 1/28th share eac'1. The B
defendant no.6-appellant and defendant Nos.1, 4 and 5
filed a joint appeal which was dismissed by the first
appellate court. The second Appeal filed by defendant
Nos.1, 4 and 5 was dismissed by the High Court.
Subsequently, Respondent No.1 instituted final decree c
proceedings. Meanwhile, the Karnataka legislature made
a State amendment in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956
vide the Hindu Succession (Karnataka Amendment) Act,
1990 [Karnataka Act No.23 of 1994) by inserting s.6A
whereby unmarried daughters were given equal rights in D
co~parcenary property. The appellant thereafter filed an
application under Sections 151, 152 and 153 of CPC for
amendment of the preliminary decree and for grant of a
declaration that in terms of Section SA she was entitled
to 2/7th share (higher share) in the suit property, claiming E
that she had not married. till the enforcement of the
Karnataka Act No.23 of 1994.

· The trial Court dismissed the appellant's application
primarily on the ground that Section 6A of the Act is not
retrospective. In the opinion of the trial Court, the F
amendment made in the Act can be applied only to those
cases in which partition of the joint family properties is
effected after 30.7.1994, but the same cannot be relied
upon for amending the decree, which had becorr,te final.
The appellant's challenge to the aforesaid order was G
negatived by the High Court, which held that with the
dismissal of the second appeal, the preliminary decree
passed by the trial Court had become final and during the
pendency of the second appeal filed by defendant Nos.
1, 4 and 5, the appellant had not prayed for enhancement H
58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 8 S.C.R.

A of her share in the joint family property in terms of
Section SA, which was inserted by the State Amendment.
The High· Court held that the application filed by the
appellant could not be entertained in the final decree
proceedings instituted by respondent No.1.
B
In the instant appeal, the question which arose for
consideration was whether the appellant, who failed in
her challenge to the preliminary decree passed in a suit
for partition filed by respondent No.1 could seek
C enhancement of her share in the joint family property in
the final decree proceedings in terms of Section SA
inserted in the Hindu Succession Act, 195S by the Hindu
Succession (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1990.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
D
HELD:1. With a view to achieve the goal of equality
enshrined in Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution and
to eliminate discrimination against daughters, who were
deprived of their right to participate in the coparcenary
E property, the Karnataka legislature amended the Hindu
Succession Act, 195S and inserted Sections SA to SC for
ensuring that the unmarried daughters get equal share
in the coparcenary property. This is evident from the
preamble and Sections 1 and 2 .of the Karnataka Act
F No.23 of 1994 i.e. the Hindu Succession (Karnataka
Amendment) Act, 1990 [Para 10) [SS-C-E]
2.1. The scope of Section 29A which was Inserted In
the Act by Andhra Pradesh Act No.13 of 198S and which
is pari materia to Section SA of the Karnataka Act No.23
G of 1994 was considered by the Andhra Pradesh High
Court which after referring to Section 29A held that if
after passing of preliminary dectee in a partition suit but
before passing of final decree, there has been
enlargement or diminution of the shares of the parties or
, H their rights have been altered by statutory amendment,
PREMA v. NANJE GOWDA AND ORS. 59

the Court is duty bound to decide the matter and pass A
final decree keeping in view the change scenario. The
appeal preferred against the judgment of the High Court
was dismissed by the Supreme Court in S. Sai Reddy v.
S. Narayana Reddy [Paras 11 •. 12] (68~0-F; 69-B-C; 70-D]
B
2.2. In the present case, the preliminary decree was
passed on 11.8.1992. The first appeal was dismissed on
20.3.1998 and the second appeal was dismissed on
1.10.1999. By the preliminary decree, shares of the
parties were determined but the actual partition/division C
had not taken place. Therefore, the proceedings of the
suit instituted by respondent No.1 cannot be treated to
have become final so far as the actual partition of the joint
family properties is concerned and it was open to the
appellant to claim enhancement of her share in the joint
family properties because she had not married till the D
enforcement of the Karnataka Act No.23 of 1994. Section
6A of the Karnataka Act No.23 of 1994 is identical to
Section 29A of the Andhra Pradesh Act Therefore, there
is no reason why ratio of the judgment of the Supreme
Court in S. Sai Reddy v. S. Narayana Reddy should not E
be applied for deciding the appellant's claim for grant of
share at par with male members of the joint family. In the
considered view of this Court, the trial Court and the
Single Judge were clearly in error when they held that the
appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the Karnataka F
Act No.23 of 1994 because she had not filed an
application for enforcing the right accruing to her under
Section 6A during the pendency of the first and the
second appeals or that she had not challenged the
preliminary decree by joining defendant Nos.1, 4 and 5 G
in filing the second appeal. [Para 13] [75-F-H; 76-A-C]

2.3. By virtue of the preliminary decree passed by the
trial Court, which was confirmed by the lower appellate
lcourt and the High Court, the issues decided therein will
I H
60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 8 S.C.R.

A be deemed to have become final but as the partition suit
is required to be decided in stages, the same can be
regarded as fully and completely decided only when the
final decree is passed. If in the interregnum any party to
the partition suit dies, then his/her share is required to be
B allotted to the surviving parties and this can be done in
the final decree proceedings. Likewise, if law governing
the parties is amended before conclusion of the final
decree proceedings, the party benefited by such
amendment can make a request to the Court to take
c cognizance of the amendment and give effect to the
same. If the rights of the parties to the suit change due
to other reasons, the Court ceased with the final decree
proceedings is not only entitled but is duty bound to take
n9tice of such change and pass appropriate order. In this
case, the Act was amended by the State legislature and
0
Sections 6A to 6C were inserted for achieving the goal
of equality set out in the Preamble of the Constitution. In
terms of Section 2 of the Karnataka Act No.23 of 1994,
Section 6A came into force on 30.7.1994, i.e. the date on
which the amendment was published. As on that day, the
E final decree proceedings were pending. Therefore, the
appellant had every right to seek enlargement of her share
by pointing out that the discrimination practiced against
the unmarried daughter had been removed by the
legislative intervention and there is no reason why the
F Court should hesitate in giving effect to an amendment
made by the State legislature in exercise of the power
vested in it under Article 15(3) of the Constitution. [Para
14] [72-D-H; 73-A·B]

G 2.4. The trial Court and the High Court committed
serious error by dismissing the application filed by the
appellant for grant of equal share in the suit property in
terms of Section 6A of the Karnataka Act No.23 of 1994.
As a sequel to this, the application filed by the appellant
H under Sections 151, 152 and 153 CPC is allowed in terms
PREMA v. NANJE GOWDA AND ORS. 61

of the prayer made. If the final decree has not been A
passed so far, then the trial Court shall do so within six
months from the date of production/receipt of the copy
of this judgment. If the final .decree has already been
passed, then the trial Court shall amend the same in
terms of this judgment and give effect to the right acquired B
by the appellant under Section 6A of the Karnataka Act
No.23 of 1994. [Paras 20, 21) [82-B-F]
Phoo/chand v. Gopal Lal AIR 1967 SC 1470: 1967 SCR
153 and S. Sai Reddy v. S. Narayana Reddy (1991) 3 SCC
647 - relied on. C
Venkata Reddy v. Pethi Reddy AIR 1963 SC 992: 1963
Suppl. SCR 616; Gyarsi Bai v. Dhansukh Lal AIR 1965 SC
1055; Moo/ Chand v. Deputy Director, Consolidation (1995)
5 SCC 631: 1.995 (2) Suppl. SCR 763; S. Narayana Reddy D
v. S. Sai Reddy, AIR 1990 Andhra Pradesh 263; · R.
Gurubasaviah Rumale Karibasappa and others AIR 1955
Mysore 6, Parshuram Rajaram Tiwari v. Hirabai Rajaram
Tiwari, AIR 1957 Bombay 59. and Jadunath Roy and others
v. Parameswar Mullick and others AIR 1940 PC 11 - referred E
to.
Case Law Reference:
1963 Suppl. SCR 616 referred to Para 6,15,17
AIR 1965 SC 1055 referred to Para 6,18
F
. 1995 (2) Suppl. SCR 763 referred to Para 6,19
(1991) 3 sec 647 relied on Para 6, 7, 11,
15,20
1967 SCR 153 relied on Para 7, 11,
G
13, 15,16,20
AIR 1990 Andhra
Pradesh 263 referred to Para 11
AIR 1955 Mysore 6 referred to Para 11
AIR 1957 Bombay 59 referred to Para 11 H
62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 8 S.C.R.

A AIR 1940 PC 11 referred to Para 11

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
2481 of 2005.

From the Judgment & Order dated 13.8.2002 of the High
B Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Civil Revision Petition No.
3079 of 2000.

S.N. Bhat for the Appellant. ·

K. Sarada Devi for the Respondents.
c
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G.S. SINGHVI, J. 1. The question which arises for
consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant, who failed
o in her challenge to the preliminary decree passed in a suit for
partition filed by respondent No.1 can seek enhancement of her
share in the joint family property in the final decree proceedings
in terms of Section 6A inserted in the Hindu Succession Act,
1956 (for short, "the Act") by the Hindu Succession (Karnataka
E Amendment) Act, 1990, which received Presidential assent on
28.7.1994 and was published in the Karnataka Gazette dated
30.7.1994.

2., The suit for partition and separate possession of his
share filed by respondent No.1, which came to be registered
F as O.S. No.425 of 1989, was decreed by Munsiff,
Srirangapatna (hereinafter described as, 'the trial Court') vide
judgment dated 11.8.1992. The trial Court held that plaintiff-
respondent No.1 and defendant No.3 are entitled to 2nth share
and defendant Nos.1, 4, 5 and 6 are entitled to 1/28th share
G each.

3. Regular Appeal No.69 of 1992 jointly filed by the
appellant, who was defendant No.6 in the suit and defendant
Nos, 1, 4 and 5 was dismissed by Civil Judge (Senior Division),
H Srirangapatna (hereinafter described as 'the lower appellate
-
\ PREMA v. NANJE GOWDA AND ORS. 63
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
Court') vide judgment dated 20.3.1998. Regular Second A
Appeal No.624 of 1998 filed by defendant Nos.1, 4 and 5 was
dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 1.10.1999 on the
ground that the same was barred by limitation.

4. In the meanwhile, respondent No.1 instituted final decree
8
proceedings (FOP No.5 of 1999). On being noticed by the trial
Court, the appellant filed an application under Sections 151,
152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for
amendment of the preliminary decree and for grant of a
declaration that in terms of Section 6A inserted in the Act by C
the State Amendment, she was entitled to 2/7th share in the
suit property. The appellant averred that she had married one
Shri M.B. Srinivasaiah on 9.8.1994, i.e. after coming into force .
of the State Amendment and, as such, she is entitled to higher
share in the joint family property. Respondent No.1 contested
the application by asserting that with the dismissal of Regular D
Second Appeal No. 624 of 1998, the preliminary decree
passed in O.S. No.425 of 1989 will be deemed to have
become final and in the final decree proceedings the appellant
cannot claim higher share by relying upon Section 6A which
came into force in 1994. He denied the appellant's assertion E
about her marriage on 9.8.1994. In the alternative, he pleaded
that even if the marriage certificate produced by the appellant
is treated as genuine, she cannot claim higher share by relying
upon the State Amendment.
F
5. By an order dated 10.7.2000, the trial Court dismissed
the appellant's application primarily on the ground that Section
6A of the Act is not retrospective. In the opinion of the trial Court,
the amendment made in the Act can be applied only to those
cases in which partition of the joint family properties is effected G
after 30. 7.1994, but the same cannot be relied upon for
amending the decree, which has become final. The trial Court
observed that even if the daughter remains unmarried, she
cannot be treated as coparcener because after partition, there
remains no joint family property. The trial Court also held that
H
-
64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 8 S.C.R.

A the application filed by the appellant was barred by time.

6. The appellant's challenge to the aforesaid order was
negatived by the learned Single Judge, who held that with the
dismissal of the second appeal, the preliminary decree passed
B by the trial Court had become final and during the pendency of
the second appeal filed by defendant Nos. 1, 4 and 5, the
appellant had not prayed for enhancement of her share in the
joint family property in terms of Section 6A, which was inserted
by the State Amendment. The learned Single Judge relied upon
c the judgments of this Court in Venkata Reddy v. Pethi Reddy
AIR 1963 SC 992, Gyarsi Bai v. Dhansukh Lal AIR 1965 SC
1055 and Moo/ Chand v. Deputy Director, Consolidation
(1995) 5 sec 631 and held that the application filed by the
appellant could not be entertained in the final decree
0 proceedings instituted by respondent No.1. The learned Single
Judge distinguished the judgment in S. Sai Reddy v. S.
Narayana Reddy (1991) 3 SCC 647, upon which reliance was
placed by the appellant by observing that the two-Judge Bench
had not referred to the earlier judgments of the larger Benches.

E 7. Shri S.N. Bhat, learned counsel for the appellant argued
that even though the appellant did not seek modification of the
preliminary decree by joining other defendants who had filed
Regular Second Appeal No. 624/1998, the application filed by
her could not have been dismissed as not maintainable because
F till then the joint family property had not been partitioned. He
submittectthat in a partition suit, the preliminary decree passed
by the competent Court does not become effective till the suit
property is actually divided in accordance with law and the
same can be modified for good and sufficient reasons. Learned
G counsel submitted that by virtue of Section 6A, the appellant
had become entitle to higher share in the joint family property
and the trial Court and the High Court committed serious error
by negating her claim on a wrong assumption that the benefit
of amendment cannot be availed by the appellant in the final
H decree proceedings. In support of his arguments, Shri Bhat
PREMA v. NANJE GOWDA AND ORS. 65
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
relied upon the judgments of this Court in Phoolchand v. Gopal A
Lal AIR 1967 SC 1470 and S. Sai Reddy v. S. Narayana
Reddy (supra).

8. Mrs. K. Sarada Devi, learned counsel for the
respondents argued that the trial Court and the High Court did 8
not commit any error by rejecting the appellant's claim for higher
share because with the passing of decree for partition and
separate possession, the suit property lost its character as joint
family property and the appellant was not entitled to claim
anything from the shares already allotted to other members of C
the erstwhile joint family property.

9. In the pre-Independence era, social reformers like Raja
Ram Mohan Roy, Lokmanya Tilak, Mahatma Phule and
Mahatma Gandhi took up the cause of women and relentlessly
worked for promotion of female education, re-marriage of D
widows and elimination of child marriage. The concept of
widow's estate was also developed during that period which
led to enactment of Hindu Women's Right to Property Act,
1937. The framers of the Constitution were great visionaries.
They not only placed justice and equality at the highest pedestal, E
but also incorporated several provisions for ensuring that the
people are not subjected to discrimination on the ground of
caste, colour, religion or sex. Article 14 of the Constitution
declares that the State shall not deny to any person equality
before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the F
territory of India. Article 15 lays down that the State shall not
discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion,
race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them and no citizen
shall be subjected to any disability, liability, restriction or
condition on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth G
or any of them in the matter of access to shops, public
restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment; or the
use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public
resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds dedicated
to the use of the general public. Clause (3) of Article 15 contains H
66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 8 S.C.R.

A an enabling provision and lays down that nothing in that article
•
shall prevent the State from making any special provision for
women and children. Similar provisions have been made in
Article 16 in the matter of public employment.

8 10. With a view to achieve the goal of equality enshrined
in Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution and to eliminate
discrimination against daughters, who were deprived of their
right to participate in the coparcenary property, the Karnataka
legislature amended the Act and inserted Sections 6A to 6C
C for ensuring that the unmarried daughters get equal share in
the coparcenary property. This is evident from the preamble and
Sections 1 and 2 of the Karnataka Act No.23 of 1994, the
relevant portions of which are reproduced below:

"KARNATAKA ACT No. 23 OF 1994
D
THE HINDU SUCCESSION (KARNATAKA
AMENDMENT) ACT, 1990

An Act to amend the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in its
application to the State of Karnataka;
E
WHEREAS the Constitution of India has proclaimed
equality before law as a fundamental right;

And whereas the exclusion of the daughter from
participation in co-parcenary ownership merely by reason
F
of her sex is contrary thereto;

And whereas the beneful system of dowry has to be
eradicated by positive measure which will simultaneously
ameliorate the condition of women in the Hindu society;
G
Be it enacted by the Karnataka State Legislature in the
Forty-first year of the Republic of India as follows:

1. Short title and commencement. - (1) This Act may be
called the Hindu Succession (Karnataka Amendment) Act,
H
..... PREMA v. NANJE GOWDA AND ORS. 67
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
1990. A

(2) It shall come into force at once.

2. Insertion of new sections in Central Act XXX of 1956. -
In the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Central Act XXX of
1956) after Section 6, the following sections shall be B
inserted, namely:-

6A. Equal rights to daughter in co-parcenary property. -
Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 6 of this
M,- C
(a) in a joint Hindu family governed by Mitakshara
law, the daughter of a coparcener shall by birth become a
coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son
and have the same rights in the coparcenary property as
she would have had if she had been a son inclusive of the D
right to claim by survivorship and shall be subject to the
same liabilities and disabilities in respect thereto as the
son;

(b) at a partition in such Joint Hindu Family the co- E
parcenary property shall be so divided as to allot to a
daughter the same share as is allotable to a son;

Provided that the share which a predeceased son
or a predeceased daughter would have got at the partition
F
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 predeceased daughter;

Provided further that the share allotable to the
predeceased child of the predeceased son or of a G
predeceased 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 predeceased son or of such
predeceased daughter, as the case may be: -
H
A
68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 8 S.C.R.

(c) any property to which a female Hindu becomes
•
entitled by virtue of the provisions of clause (a) shall be held
by her with the incidents of coparcenary ownership and
shall be regarded, notwithstanding anything contained in
this Act or any other law for the time being in force, as
B property capable of being disposed of by her by will or
other testamentary disposition;

(d) nothing in clause (b) shall apply to a daughter
married prior to or to a partition which had been effected
before the commencement of Hindu Succession
c (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1990."

11. Similar provisions were inserted in the Act by the
legislatures of the States of Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and
Tamil Nadu. The scope of Section 29A which was inserted in
D the Act by Andhra Pradesh Act No.13 of 1986 and which is pari
materia to Section 6A of the Karnataka Act No.23 of 1994 was
considered by the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in S. Narayana Reddy v. S. Sai Reddy, AIR 1990
Andhra Pradesh 263. The facts of that case were that the
E preliminary decree passed by the trial Court in a partition suit
was confirmed by the High Court with a direction that while
passing final decree, the trial Court shall make appropriate
provision for maintenance and marriage expenses of defendant
Nos.5 to 9 and maintenance of the third defendant shall be
F borne equally by each of the plaintiff, first defendant and fourth
defendant out of the joint family properties. After insertion of
Section 29A in the Act by Andhra Pradesh Act No.13 of 1986,
the first defendant claimed that defendant Nos.6 to 9 being
unmarried daughters are entitled to shares at par with their
brothers because the properties had not been divided by then.
G The trial Court rejected the claim of the first defendant by
observing that with the dismissal of the appeal by the High
Court, the preliminary decree had become final and the
appellant was not entitled to indirectly challenge the same. The
learned Single Judge referred to Section 29A, the judgments
H
PREMA v. NANJE GOWDA AND ORS. 69
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
of Mysore High Court in R. Gurubasaviah Ruma/e A
Karibasappa and others AIR 1955 Mysore 6, Parshuram
Rajaram Tiwari v. Hirabal Rajaram Tiwari, AIR 1957 Bombay
59 and Jadunath Roy and others v. Parameswar Mullick and
others AIR 1940 PC 11 and held that if after passing of
preliminary decree in· a partition suit but before passing of final B
decree, there has been enlargement or diminution of the shares
of the parties or their rights have been altered by statutory
amendment, the Court' is duty bound to decide the matter and
pass final decree keeping in view the change scenario.

The learned Single Judge then referred to the judgment
c
of this Court in Phoolchand v. Gopal Lal (supra) and observed:

"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 ar:)Y stage till the passing of D
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 E
· Act ( 13 of 1986) the statute conferred a rig ht 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 F
entitled to claim a right and request the Court to pass a
final decree by taking into account the altered
situation .................................. .

20. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Phoolchand's
case, (AIR 1967 SC 1470) (supra} there is no prohibition G
in the Code of Civil Procedure against passing· a second
preliminary decree particularly in partition suits where
shares specified in the preliminary decree have to be
adjusted so long as a final decree has not been passed
in that su.it. On facts in this case, a preliminary decree has H
70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 8 S.C.R.

A been passed giving 1/3rd share to the plaintiff. The shares
of the other persons also have to be ascertained and the
rights of the unmarried daughters have been recognised
in the "preliminary decree. There is a statutory change by
the introduction of Section 29A of the Hindu Succession
B Act which came into force on 5th September, 1985 and
the preliminary decree has been passed on 26th
December, 1973, but no final decree has been passed.
The plaintiff himself filed an application for passing a final
decree and the trial court is bound to implement the
c statutory rights conferred on the daughters and it ought
to have allowed the petition in accordance with law. n

(emphasis supplied)

12. While dismissing the appeal preferred against the
D judgment of the High Court, this Court observed as under:

" ........................... The crucial question, however, is as
to when a partition can be said to have been effected for
the purposes of the amended provision. A partition of the
joint Hindu family can be effected by various modes, viz.,
E
by a family settlement, by a registered instrument of
partition, by oral arrangement by the parties, or by a decree
of the court. When a suit for partition is filed in a court, a
preliminary decree is passed determining shares of the
members of the family. The final decree follows,
F thereafter, allotting specific properties and directing the
partition of the immovable properties by metes and
bounds. Unless and until the final decree is passed and
the allottees of the shares are put in possession of the
respective property, the partition is not complete. The
G preliminary decree which determines shares does not
bring about the final partition. For, pending the final
decree the shares themselves are liable to be varied on
account of the intervening events. In the instant case,
there is no dispute that only a preliminary decree had
H been passed and before the final decree could be
• PREMA v. NANJE GOWDA AND ORS.
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
passed the amending Act came into force as a result of
71

A
which clause (ii). of Section 29-A of the Act became
applicable: ................. ~ .. Since the legislation is
beneficial and placed on the statute book with the avowed
object of benefitting women which is a vulnerable section
of the society in all its stratas, it is necessary to give a B
liberal effect to it. For thi~ reason also, we cannot equate
the concept of partition that the legislature has in mind in
the present case with a mere severance of the status of
the joint family which can be effected by an expression of
a mere desire by a family member to do so. The partition c
that the legislature has in mind in the present case is
undoubtedly a partition completed in all respects and
which has brought about an irreversible ~ituation. A
preliminary decree which merely declares shares which
are themselves liable to change does not bring about any D
irreversible situation. Hence, we are of the view that
unless a partition of the property is effected by metes and
bounds, the daughters cannot be deprived of the benefits
confe"ed by the Act. Any other view is likely to deprive
a vast section of the fair sex of the benefits conferred by E
the amendment ........................ "

(emphasis supplied)

13. In the present case, the preliminary decree was passed
on 11.8.1992. The first appeal was d.ismissed on 20.3.1998 F .
and the second appeal was dismissed on 1.10.1999 as barred
by limitation. By the preliminary decree, shares of the parties
were determined but the actual partition/division had not taken
place. Therefore, the proceedings of the suit instituted by
respondent No.1 cannot be treated to have become final so far G
as the actual partition of the joint family properties is concerned
and in view of the law laid down in Phoolchand v. Gopal Lal
(supra) and S. Sai Reddy v. S. Narayana Reddy (supra), it
was open to the appellant to claim enhancement of her share
in the joint family properties because she had not married till
H
72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 8 S.C.R.

A the enforcement of the Karnataka Act No.23 of 1994. Section
6A of the Karnataka Act No.23 of 1994 is identical to Section
29A of the Andhra Pradesh Act. Therefore, there is no reason
. why ratio of the judgment in S. Sai Reddy v. S. Narayana
Reddy (supra) should not be applied for deciding the
B appellant's claim for grant of share at par with male members
of the joint family. In our considered view, the trial Court and
the learned Single Judge were clearly in error when they held
that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the Kamataka
Act No.23 of 1994 because she had not filed an application
c for enforcing the right accruing to her under Section 6A during
the pendency of the first and the second appeals or that she
had not challenged the preliminary decree by joining defendant
Nos.1, 4 and 5 in filing the second appeal.

14. We may add that by virtue of the preliminary decree
D passed by the trial Court, which was confirmed by the lower
appellate Court and the High Court, the issues decided therein
will be deemed to have become final but as the partition suit
is required to be decided in stages, the same can be regarded
as fully and completely decided only when the final decree is
E passed. If in the interregnum any party to the partition suit dies,
then his/her share is required to be allotted to the surviving
parties and this can be done in the final decree proeeedings.
Likewise, if law governing the parties is amended before
conclusion of the final decree proceedings, the party benefited
F by such amendment can make a request to the Court to take
cognizance of the amendment and give effect to the same. If
the rights of the parties to the suit change due to other reasons,
the Court ceased with the final decree proceedings is not only
entitled but is duty bound to take notice of such change and
G pass appropriate order. In this case, the Act was amended by
the State legislature and Sections 6A to 6C were inserted for
achieving the goal of equality set out in the Preamble of the
Constitution. In terms of Section 2 of the Karnataka Act No.23
of 1994, Section 6A came into force on 30.7.1994, i.e. the date
H on which the amendment was published. As on that day, the
PREMA v. NANJE GOWDA AND ORS. 73
[G.S, SINGHVI, J.]
final decree proceedings were pending. Therefore, the A
appellant had every right to seek enlargement of her share by
pointing out that the discrimination practiced against the
unmarried daughter had been removed by the legislative
intervention and there is· no reason why the Court should
hesitate in giving effect to an amendment made by the State B
legislature in exercise of the power vested in it under Article
15(3) of the Constitution.

15. The issue which remains to be considered is whether
the learned Single Judge of the High Court was justified in C
refusing to follow the law laid down in S. Sai Reddy v. S.
Narayana Reddy (supra) on the ground that the same was
based on the judgment of three-Judge Bench in Phoolchand
v. Gopal Lal (supra) and a contrary view had been expressed
by the larger Bench in Venkata Reddy v. Pethi Reddy (supra).
D
16. In Phoolchand v. Gopal Lal (supra), this Court
considered the question whether the· preliminary decree passed
in a partition suit is conclusive for all purposes and the Court
before whom final decree proceedings are pending cannot take
note the changes which may have occurred after passing of the E
preliminary decree. The facts of that case were that appellant-
Phoolchand had filed a suit in 1937 for partition of his 1/5th
share in the plaint schedule properties. Sohanlal (father of the
appellant), Gopal Lal (brother of the appellant), Rajmal (minor
adopted son of Gokalchand (deceased), who was ano!:ier F
brother of the appellant) and Smt. Guiab Bai (mother of the
appellant) impleaded as defendants. along with two other
persons. The suit was contested up to Mahkma Khas of the
former State of Jaipur and a preliminary decree for partition
was passed on 1.8.1942 specifying the shares of the appellant G
and four defendants. Before a final decree could be passed,
Sohanlal and his wife Smt Guiab Bai died. Gopal Lal claimed
that his father Sohanlal had executed a Will in his favour on
2.6.1940 and bequeathed all his property to him. Appellant-
Phoolchand challenged the genuineness. of the Will. He also H
74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 8 S.C.R.

A claimed that Smt Guiab Bai had executed a sale deed dated
19.10.1947 in his favour, which was duly registered on
10.1.1948. Gopal Lal challenged the sale deed by contending
that Guiab Bai had executed the sale deed because she was
a limited owner of the share in the ancestral property. The trial
B Court held that the Will allegedly executed by Sohan Lal in
favour of Gopal Lal had not been proved but the sale deed
executed by Guiab Bai in favour of Phoolchand was valid. As '
a sequel to these findings, the trial Court redistributed the
shares indicated in the preliminary decree. As a result,
c Phoolchand's share was increased from one-fifth to one-half
and Gopal Lal's share was increased from one-fifth to one-fourth
and that of Rajmal from one-fifth to one-fourth. The High Court
allowed the appeal filed by Gopal Lal and held that Guiab Bai
was not entitled to sell her share in favour of appellant-
D Phoolchand. The High Court also held that the Will executed
by Sohan Lal in favour of Gopal Lal was genuine. One of the
points considered by this Court was whether there could be
more than one preliminary decree. This Court referred to the
judgments of various High Courts, which took the view that in
E a partition suit, the High Court has jurisdiCtion to amend the
shares suitably even if the preliminary decree has been passed
and then proceeded to observe:

"We are of opinion that there is nothing in the Code of Civil
Procedure which prohibits the passing of more than one
F 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
G 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
H decree is prepared. If this is done, there is a clear
PREMA v. NANJE GOWDA AND ORS. 75
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
determination of the rights of parties to the suit on the A
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 praliminary
decree correcting the shares in a partition suit cannot be
passed by the court. So far therefore as partition suits are B
concerned we have no doubt that 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 c
the preliminary decree already passed is a decree in
itself which would be liable to appeal. We should however
like to point out that what we are saying must be confined
to partition suits, for we are not concerned in the present
appeal with other kinds of suits in which also preliminary D
and final decrees are passed .......................... .
n

(emphasis supplied)

1_7. In· Venkata Reddy v. Pethi Reddy (supra), the E
Constitution B~nch was called upon to consider the question
as to what meaning should be given to the expression 'final
decision' occurring in the .first proviso to Section 28A of the
Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920. The facts of that case were that
Venkata Reddy, the father of the appellants, was adjudicated F
an insolvent by the Sub-Court, Salem in l.P. No. 73of1935. At
that time only appellants Nos.1 and 2 were born while the third'
appellant was born later. The father's one-third share was put
up for auction by the Official Receiver and was purchased by
· one Karuppan Pillai for Rs 80/-. The Official Receiver then put G
up for auction the two-third share belonging to appellant Nos.1
and 2 on 27.7.1936 which was purchased by the same person
for Rs 341/-. He sold the entire property to the respondent Pethi
Reddy on 25.5.1939 for Rs 300/~. The appellants instituted a
suit on 1.2.1943 for the partition of the joint family property to
H
76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 8 S.C.R.

A which suit they made Pethi Reddy a party and claimed
thereunder two-third share in the property purchased by him.
In that suit, it was contended on behalf of the respondent that
· on their father's insolvency the share of the appellants in the
joint family property also vested in the Official Receiver and that
B he had the power to sell it. The contention was negatived by
the trial Court which passed preliminary decree for partition in
favour of the appellants. The decree was affirmed in appeal by
the District Judge and eventually by the High Court in second
appeal, except with a slight variation regarding the amount of
c mesne profits. On 18.1.1946, the appellants made an
application for a final decree which was granted ex parte on
17.8.1946. However, the decree was set aside at the instance
of the respondent. By relying upon Section 28A of the Provincial
Insolvency Act, it was contended by the respondent that the
0 appellants were not entitled to the allotment of their two-third
share in the property purchased by him inasmuch as that share
had vested in the Official Receiver. The District Munsiff rej~cted
the. contention of the respondent and restored the ex pa rte
decree. The appeal preferred by the respondent was dismissed
E by Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem. However, the second
appeal filed by him was allowed by the High Court and the
application filed by the appellants for passing final decree was
dismissed. The Constitution Bench referred to Section 28A of
the Provincial Insolvency Act, which was as under:

F "The property of the insolvent shall comprise and shall
always be deemed to have comprised also the capacity
to exercise and to take proceedings for exercising all such
powers in or over or in respect of property as might have
been exercised by the insolvent for his own benefit at the
G commencement of his insolvency or before his discharge:

Provided that nothing in this section shall affect any
sale, mortgage or other transfer of the property of the
insolvent by a Court or Receiver or the Collector acting
under Section 60 made before the commencement of the
H
......
PREMA v. NANJE GOWDA AND ORS. 77
. [G:S. SINGHVI, J.J .
·Provincial lnsolvency(Amendrl1ent) Act; 1948, which has A
been the subject of a final decision by a competent court:

Provided further that the property of the insolvent
shall not be deemed by any reason of anything contained
in this section to comprise his capacity referred to in this 8
section in respect of any such sale, mortgage or other
transfer of property made in the State of Madras after July
28, 1942 and before the commencement of the Provincial
Insolvency (Amendment) Act, 1948."

The Court then referred to Objects and Reasons set out C
.. in the Bill, which led to the enactment Qf Section 28A and
· ·/observed:

·. . . . '. "Thenewprovision makes ifclear that the J~w is and has
. ' ·'
always been that upon the father's insol\ienc~ his disposing , 0
power over the interest of his undivided sons in the. joinf.
family property vests in the OffiCial Receiver and that
consequently the latter has a right to sell that interest. The
· provision is thus declaratory of the law and was intended
to apply to all cases except those covered by the two E
provisos. We are concerned here only with the first proviso.
This proviso excepts from the operation of the Act a
transaction such as a sale by an Official Receiver which
has been the subject of a final decision by a competent
Court ....................... "
F
The Court then held that the preliminary decree passed,
whether it is in a mortgage suit or a partition suit, is not a
tentative decree but is final in so far as the matters dealt with
by it are concerned. This is evident from the following
observations made in the judgment: G

" ....................................... A decision is said to be
final when, so far as the court rendering it is concerned, it
is unalterable except by resort to such provisions of the
·· Code of Civil Procedure as permit its reversal, H
78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 8 S.C.R.

A modification or amendment. Similarly, a final decision
would mean a decision which would operate as res
judicata between the parties if it is not sought to be
modified or reversed by preferring an appeal or a revision
or a review application as is permitted by the Code. A
B preliminary decree passed, whether it is in a mortgage
suit or a partition suit, is not a tentative decree but must,
in so far as the matters dealt with by it are concerned, be
regarded as conclusive. No doubt, in suits which
contemplate the making of two decrees a preliminary
c decree and a final decree - the decree which would be
executable would be the final decree. But the finality of a
decree or a decision does not necessarily depend upon
its being executable. The legislature in its wisdom has
thought that suits of certain types should be decided in
stages and though the suit in such cases can be
D
regarded as fully and completely decided only after a
final decree is made the decision of the court arrived at
the earlier stage also has a finality attached to it. It would
be relevant to refer to Section 97 of the Code of Civil
Procedure which provides that where a party aggrieved by
E a preliminary decree does not appeal from it, he is
precluded from disputing its correctness in any appeal
which may be preferred from the final decree. This
provision thus clearly indicates that as to the matters
covered by it, a preliminary decree is regarded as
F embodying the final decision of the court passing that
decree."

(emphasis supplied)

18. In Gyarsi Bai v. Dhansukh Lal (supra), the three-Judge
G Bench considered the nature of the preliminary and final
decrees in a mortgage suit and the question whether the
mortgagor is entitled to raise the plea in the final decree
proceedings which he did not raise during the pendency of the
suit up to the stage_ of preliminary decree. The facts of the case,
iH
PREMA v. NANJE GOWDA AND ORS. 79
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]

as contained in the judgment, were that the plaint-schedule A
properties originally belonged to one Noor Mohammad, his
wife and son. On 14.9.1936, they mortgaged the said
properties with possession to B.F. Marfatia for a sum Rs.
25,000. On 22.2.1938, the said mortgagors executed a simple
mortgage in respect of the same properties to one Novat Mal B
for Rs. 5000. On 21.12.1942, Radha Kishan, Har Prasad and
Pokhi Ram acquired the equity of redemption in the said
properties in an auction-sale held in execution of a money
decree against the mortgagors. On 14.2.1950 and 13.3.1950,
Seth Girdhari Lal, the husband of appellant No.1 herein, c
purchased the mortgagee rights of Novat Mal and Marfatia
respectiv"8ly. On 1.5.1950, Girdhari Lal was put in possession
of the mortgaged properties. On 22. 7.1950, respondent Nos.9
to 11 purchased the equity of redemption of the mortgaged
properties from Radha Kishan, Har Prasad and Pokhi Ram. 0
On 10.8.1950, Girdhari Lal instituted Civil Suit No. 739 of 1950
. in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Ajmer, for
enforcing the said two mortgages. In the suit, he claimed Rs.
48,919-12-6 as the amount due to him under the said two
mortgages: On 25.4.1953, the Senior Subordinate Judge, E
Ajmer, gave a preliminary decree in the suit for the recovery of
a sum of Rs. 34,003-1-6 with proportionate costs and future
interest; he disallowed interest from 14.9.1936 to 13.3.1950,
on the mortgage of Rs. 25,000. The plaintiff-mortgagee
preferred an appeal, being Civil Appeal No.71 of 1953 to the
Judicial Commissioner, Ajmer, against the said decree insofar F
as it disallowed interest to him. The defendants preferred cross-
objections in respect of that part of the decree awarding costs
against them. On 25. 7.1953, the defendants filed an application
under Order XXXIV Rule 5(1) of the CPC, seeking permission
to deposit the decretal amount in court and praying that G
possession of the properties may be directed to be delivered
to them and also for directing the decree-holder to render
accounts of the profits of the mortgaged properties received
by him. On 29.7.1953, the respondents deposited Rs. 35,155-
H
80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 8 S.C.R.

A 2-6 in the trial Court. On 17 .8.1953, the decree-holder filed
objections to the said deposit on the ground that it was much
less than the decretal amount. On 27 .8.1953, the trial Court
made an order permitting the decree-holder to withdraw the
said amount with the reservation that the question as to what
8 was due under the decree would be decided later. On
25.8.1954, both the appeal of the decree-holder and the cross-
objections of the defendants were dismissed. On 7.12.1954,
the defendants filed an application in the trial Court for the
determination of the amount due under the decree and for
c directing the decree-holder to render accounts of all the
realizations from the mortgaged properties. On 14.3.1955, this
Court granted special leave to the decree-holder for preferring
an appeal against the judgment of the Judicial Commissioner
dismissing Civil Appeal No. 71 of 1953. On 15.2.1956, the trial
Court dismissed the application filed by the defendants for
0
directions on the ground that the mortgage deed had merged
in the preliminary decree and that the said decree contained
no directions to the plaintiff to render accounts. On 29.2.1956,
the defendants applied to the Judicial Commissioner, Ajmer
under Section 152 of the CPC for amending the preliminary
E decree by including therein a direction against the plaintiff for
rendition of account in respect of the profits received by him
from the mortgaged properties. On 12.4.1956, the Judicial
Commissioner dismissed the said application. On 25.4.1956,
the defendants filed a revision petition against the order of the
F trial Court dated 15.2.1956, in the Court of ttie Judicial
Commissioner, Ajmer. By judgment dated 16.12.1960, this
Court modified the preliminary decree and directed the trial
Court to pass a fresh final decree. Thereafter, the High Court
allowed the revision filed by the defendants and remanded the
G case to the trial Court with a direction to take into account the
receipts from the mortgaged properties and expenses properly
incurred for management thereof and to determine what sum
remained to be paid to the mortgagees taking into account the
judgment of this Court. On appeal, this Court referred to Section
H
PREMA v. NANJE GOWDA AND ORS. 81
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
76(h) of the Transfer of Property ·Act and held that if the A
mortgagor does not raise a particular plea at the stage of
preliminary decree, he would be debarred on the principle of
res judicata from raising the same at a later stage and then
proceeded to observe:
"But the same cannot be said of the net receipts realized
by the mortgagee subsequent to the preliminary decree.
None of the principles relied upon by the learned counsel
for the appellants helps him in this regard. It is true that a
preliminary decree is final in respect of the matters to be C
decided before it is made: See Venkata Reddy v. Pethi
Reddy AIR 1963 SC 992 and Section 97 of the Code of
Civil Procedure. It is indisputable that in a mortgage suit
there will be two decrees, namely, preliminary decree and
final decree, and that ordinarily the preliminary decree
settles the rights of the parties and the final decree works D
out those rights: see Talebali v. Abdu/Azia, ILR 57 Cal
1013; (AIR 1929 Cal 689 FB) and Kausa/ya v.
Kau/eshwar, ILR 25 Pat 305: (AIR 1947 Pat 113). It cannot
also be disputed that a mortgage merges in the
preliminary decree and the rights of the parties are E
thereafter governed by the said decree: See Kusum
Kumari v. Debi Prosad Dhandhania, 63 Ind App 114: (AIR
1936 PC 63). But we do not see any relevancy of the said
principles to the problem that arises in this case in regard
to the liability of the mortgagee to account for the net F
receipts under Section 76(h) of the Transfer of Property
Act. A preliminary decree is only concerned with disputes
germane to the suit up to the date of the passing of the
said decree. The net receipts of the mortgaged property
· by the mortgagee subsequent to the preliminary decree G
are outside the scope of the preliminary decree: they are
analogous to amounts paid to a mortgagee by a mortgagor
subsequent to the preliminary decree.• ·

19. In Moo/ Chand v. Deputy Director, Consolidation H
82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 8 S.C.R.

A (supra), the Court considered the provisions of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and held that the
preliminary decree passed in a suit for partition can be given
effect to in proceedings before the consolidation authorities.

20. In our view, neither of the aforesaid three judgments
8
can be read as laying down a proposition of law that in a
partition suit, preliminary decree cannot be varied in the final
decree proceedings despite amendment of the law governing
the parties by which the discrimination practiced against
C unmarried daughter was removed and the statute was brought
in conformity with Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. We
are further of the view that the ratio of Phoo/chand v. Gopal
Lal (supra) and S. Sai Reddy v. S. Narayana Reddy (supra)
has direct bearing on this case and the trial Court and the High
Court committed serious error by dismissing the application
D filed by the appellant for grant of equal share in the suit property
in terms of Section 6A of the Karnataka Act No.23 of 1994.

21. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned
judgment as also the order passed by the trial Court are set
E aside. As a sequel to this, the application filed by the appellant
under Sections 151, 152 and 153 CPC is allowed in terms of
the prayer made. If the final decree has not been passed so
far, then the trial Court shall do so w.ithin six months from the
date of production/receipt of the copy of this judgment. If the
F final decree has already been passed, then the trial Court shall
amend the same in terms of this judgment and give effect to
the right acquired by the appellant under Section 6A of the
Karnataka Act No.23 of 1994. The parties are left to bear their
own costs.

G B.B.B. Appeal allowed.