SAJJA RAVINDRA Vs. SAJJA GANGADHARUDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After the Judgment was pronounced in the open Court in this case on 09-07-2003, Sri M.Y.K.Rayudu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents brought to our notice that his plea that first respondent's daughter is entitled for a share in the joint family properties was not adverted to. Therefore, we directed the Office to post the matter under the caption "For Being Mentioned" for today.

(2.) We have heard both the counsel. It is not in dispute that the eldest son of first defendant i.e., Lokeswararao died in the year 1978 and thereafter within nine months, the present suit for partition was filed by his legal heirs.During the pendency of the suit, the Hindu Succession Act was amended by State Act 13 of 1986 called as 'Hindu Succession (A.P.Amendment)Act, 1986 and Section 29-A conferring coparcenary rights on the unmarried daughters was introduced if no partition has taken place as on the date of amendment. This amendment came into force on 5-9-1985 i.e., during the pendency of the suit. Thereafter, an additional written statement was filed on behalf of the daughter 6th Defendant claiming a share in the property of first defendant. But the trial Court taken the view that the suit schedule properties are self acquired properties of first defendant and the question of constituting coparcenary does not arise and as such, she is not entitled for a share in the property. Accordingly, her claim was rejected. Now, in the appeal, we have taken the view that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties and are available for partition between the family members of the first defendant.

(3.) Now the question, whether the amendment is applicable to pending cases seeking partition of the family properties. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.SAIREDDY vs NARAYANA REDDY held that in a suit for partition if no final decree is passed, the unmarried daughters are also entitled for a share in the properties since no final decree was passed before coparcenary came into existence immediately after the amendment of Hindu Succession Act and as such the rights of the unmarried daughters cannot be taken away on the ground that the suit for partition was filed before the amendment Act came into force. It is useful to extract paras 7 and 8 of the judgment which are as follows: