Daughter’s Partition Share Reworked During Final-Decree Proceedings Under Amended Hindu Succession Act: Karnataka HC Upholds Order

Respondent No. 1 obtained a preliminary decree in a partition suit, O.S. No. 50 of 2013, allotting her a 1/25th share in the suit properties; certain sale deeds concerning Sy. No. 77 were also declared not binding on her share.

During the ensuing final decree proceedings, FDP No. 9 of 2018, she applied to modify the shares in light of the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

The petitioner, who opposed the modification, contended that the FDP Court had not given him sufficient time to file objections; he had not filed objections to the application.

The FDP Court allowed the application, and the petitioner challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended, recognises a daughter as a coparcener entitled to the same share as a son; under Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, that entitlement does not depend on whether the father was alive on the date the amendment came into force.

Ganduri Koteshwaramma v. Chakiri Yanadi and Prema v. Nanje Gowda were cited for the proposition that a preliminary decree in a partition suit may be varied before the final decree.

Relying also on Prasanta Kumar Sahoo v. Charulata Sahoo, the Court stated that a preliminary decree may be varied in final decree proceedings to give effect to an amendment in the law governing the parties and to redetermine their shares.

Final decree proceedings continue the suit proceedings and give effect to the rights declared by the preliminary decree; the final decree does not originate independently.

The Court found that the preliminary decree had allotted respondent No. 1 a 1/25th share and that she sought modification during the pending final decree proceedings following the amended Section 6 and the rule in Vineeta Sharma.

Applying the authorities permitting variation of a preliminary decree before final decree, the Court held that the FDP Court could redetermine the parties’ shares to give effect to the amended law.

The petitioner’s complaint about time to object did not persuade the Court to interfere; it noted that he had not filed objections to the application.

Finding no ground for interference under Article 227, it dismissed the writ petition and left the impugned order dated 9 June 2025 undisturbed.