Final Decree Court has jurisdiction to re-determine shares following statutory amendments despite a preliminary decree.

The petitioner (original defendant No. 11) challenged an order dated 15-12-2023 passed by the Final Decree Proceeding (FDP) Court in FDP No. 3/2021

In the underlying partition suit (O.S. No. 131/1992), a preliminary decree was modified by the High Court in RFA No. 372/2000, allotting the petitioner a 1/30th share

The petitioner subsequently filed I.A. No. VIII before the FDP Court seeking a re-determination of shares based on the 2005 Amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, claiming an equal share for his deceased wife (defendant No. 5)

The FDP Court rejected the application, holding that since the preliminary decree had attained finality, it lacked jurisdiction to alter the shares

1. Whether a Court conducting final decree proceedings has the jurisdiction to re-determine or vary the shares of the parties in a manner contrary to the shares declared under a preliminary decree that has been modified by an Appellate Court?

Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (as amended by Act 39 of 2005), which recognizes a daughter's right in coparcenary property as a right by birth

Constitution Bench decision in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) 9 SCC 1, which established that the 2005 amendment recognizes a pre-existing right and places daughters on equal footing with sons

Prasanta Kumar Sahoo v. Charulata Sahu (2023) 9 SCC 641, which clarifies that a partition suit does not attain finality until the final decree is drawn and that the FDP Court must account for supervening changes in law or logic that affect the parties' status

The Court reasoned that the FDP Court erred in treating the preliminary decree as an absolute bar to re-calculating shares

It emphasized that in partition actions, the lis remains alive until the actual division by metes and bounds occurs

The Court clarified that while a Final Decree Court cannot act as an appellate body to correct errors in a preliminary decree, it is "duty-bound" to take note of supervening events, such as legislative amendments or authoritative judicial pronouncements (like Vineeta Sharma), that occur before the final decree is drawn

Since the right of a daughter under Section 6 is a vested right by birth and not a newly created one, the FDP Court is obligated to re-work the equities to ensure the final decree reflects the current legal position, regardless of the shares quantified in the preliminary decree

The High Court set aside the order dated 15-12-2023 and allowed I.A. No. VIII. It remitted the matter to the FDP Court with directions to treat all entitled daughters as coparceners and re-compute shares in accordance with the principles in Vineeta Sharma and Prasanta Kumar Sahoo, ideally within six months