GANDURI KOTESHWARAMMA & ANR.versusCHAKIRI YANADI & ANR.

                       [2011] 12 S.C.R. 968


A            GANDURI KOTESHWARAMMA & ANR.
                                 v.
                    CHAKIRI YANADI & ANR.
                 (Civil Appeal No. 8538 of 2011)
                       OCTOBER 12, 2011
B
      [R.M. LODHA AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.]

        Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - s. 6 (as amended by
    Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005):
c
       Devolution of interest in coparcenary property - Rights
  and liabilities of the daughter- Held: Daughter of a copercener
  becomes a coparcener by birth in her own rights and liabilities
  in the same manner as the son - This is effective from
  September 9, 2005 - Right accrued to a daughter in the
0
  property is absolute, except where disposition or alienation
  including any partition/testamentary disposition of property
  has taken place before December 2fJ, 2004, as provided in
  the proviso to sub-section (1) of s. 6.

E       Partition of coparcenary property - Suit for partition by
  one of the son - Preliminary decree dated 19. 03. 1999,
  amended on 27. 09. 2003 - Before passing of the final decree,
  s. 6 was amended in 2005 whereby daughter was allotted the
  same share as was allotted to a son - Application by
F daughters seeking preliminary decree in their favour for
  partition of schedule property, allotting them one share each,
  allowed by the trial court - Said order set aside by High Court
  - On appeal, held: Section 6 (as amended) is not applicable
  to partition effected before 20.12.2004 - On facts, in the suit
G for partition only the shares were determined by preliminary
  decree dated 19.03.1999 which was amended on 27.09.2003
  - Commissioner had submitted the report as regards the
  division of the property and final decree for partition was yet
  to be passed - Or. XX r. 18 C. P. C. creates no impediment
H                               968
  GANDURI KOTESHWARAMMA & ANR. v. CHAKIRI                   969
               YANADI & ANR.

for more than one preliminary decree if after passing of the       A
preliminary decree events have taken place necessitating the
readjustment of shares as declared in the preliminary decree
- Once a preliminary decree has been passed, it is capable
of modification even if no appeal has been preferred from
such preliminary decree - Thus, order passed by the High           B
Court is set aside and that of the trial court is restored -Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. XX r. 18.

     Respondent No. 1 filed a suit for partition in respect ,
of a coparcenary property impleading his father, brother C
and two sisters (appellants). The trial court passed a
preliminary decree ·dated March 19, 1999 and the same
was amended on September 27, 2003 declaring the share
of respondent No. 1. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 filed
applications before the trial court for passing the final
decree. Before passing of the final decree, Section 6 of D
the Hindu Succession Act 1956 was amended by the
Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The appellants
filed an application for passing the preliminary decree in
their favour for partition of schedule property, allotting
them one share each by metes and bounds and for E
delivery of possession. The trial court allowed the same
holding that the appellants were entitled for re-allotment ·
of share in the preliminary decree. Respondent No. 1
then filed an appeal and the same was allowed. Therefore,
the appellants filed the instant appeal.                      F

    Allowing the appeal, the Court

     HELD: 1.1 The new Section 6 as substituted by the
Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 provides for
parity of rights in the coparcenary property among male            G
and female members of a joi{lt Hindu family on and from
September 9, 2005. The Legislature has now conferred
substantive right in favour of the daughters. According
to the new Section 6, the daughter of a copercener
becomes a coparcener by birth in her own riahts and                H
    970     SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2011] 12 S.C.R.

A liabilities in the same m·anner as the son. The declaration
  in Section 6 that the daughter of the coparcener shall
  have same rights and liabilities in the coparcenary
  property as she would have been a son is unambiguous
  and unequivocal. Thus, on and from September 9, 2005,
B the daughter is entitled to a share in the ancestral
  property and is a coparcener as if she had been a son.
  [Para 14] [978-H; 979-A-B]

         1.2 The right accrued to a daughter in the property
C of a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara Law,
    by virtue of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act,
    2005 is absolute, except in the circumstances provided
    in the proviso appended to sub-section (1) of Section 6.
    The excepted categories to which new Section 6 of the
    1956 Act is not applicable are where the disposition or
D alienation including any partition has taken place before
    December 20, 2004; and where testamentary disposition
    of property has been made before December 20, 2004.
    Sub- section (5) of Section 6 leav&s no room for doubt
    as it provides that this Section shall not apply to the
E partition which has been effected before December 20,
    2004. For the purposes of new Section 6 it is explained
    that 'partition' means any partition made by execution of
    a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration
    Act 1908 or partition effected by a decree of a court. [Para
F . 15] [979-C-E]

       1.3 The partition of a Joint Hindu family. can be
  effected by various modes, inter-alia, two of these modes
  are (one) by a registered instrument of a partition and
G (two) by a decree of the court. In the instant case,
  admittedly, the partition has not been effected before
  December 20, 2004 either by a registered instrument of
  partition or by a decree of the court. The only stage that
  has reached in the suit for partition filed by the
H respondent No.1 is the determination of shares vide
  GANDURI KOTESHWARAMMA & ANR. v. CHAKIRI               971
               YANADI & ANR.

preliminary decree dated March 19, 1999 which came to          A
be amended on September 27, 2003 and the receipt of the
report of the Commissioner. [Para 16] (980-8-C]

     1.4 A preliminary decree determines the rights and
interests of the parties. The suit for partition is not
disposed of by passing of the preliminary decree. It is by     8
a final decree that the immovable property of joint Hindu
family is partitioned by metes and bounds. After the
passing of the preliminary decree, the suit continues until
the final decree is passed. If in the interregnum i.e. after
passing of the preliminary decree and before the final         C
decree is passed, the events and supervening
circumstances occur necessitating change in shares,
there is no impediment for the court to amend the
preliminary decree or pass another preliminary decree
redetermining the rights and interests of the parties          D
having regard to the changed situation. [Para 17] (980-D-
F]

      1.5 The High Court erred in not properly appreciating
 the scope of Order XX Rule 18 of C.P.C. In a suit for         E
 partition of immovable property, if such property is not
 assessed to the payment of revenue to the government,
 ordinarily passing of a preliminary decree declaring the
 share of the parties may be required. The court would
 thereafter proceed for preparation of final decree. The
                                                               F
 Code of Civil Procedl!re Code creates no impediment for
 even more than one preliminary decree if after passing
 of the preliminary decree events have taken place
-necessitating the readjustment of shares as declared in
 the preliminary decree. The court has always power to
 revise the preliminary decree or pass another preliminary     G
 decree if the situation in the changed circumstances so
 demand. A suit for partition continues after the passing
 of the preliminary decree and the proceedings in the suit
 get extinguished only on passing of the final decree. It is
                                                               H
    972      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2011] 12 S.C.R.

A not correct statement of law that once a preliminary
  decree has been passed, it is not capable of modification.
  The rights of the parties in a partition suit should be
  settled once for all in that suit alone and no other
  proceedings. [Para 20) [984-B-E]
B      1.6 Section 97 of C.P.C. provides that where any party
  aggrieved by a preliminary decree passed after the
  commencement of the Code does not appeal from such
  decree, he shall be precluded from disputing its
  correctness in any appeal which may be preferred from
C the final decree. It does not create any hindrance or
  obstruction in the power of the court to modify, amend
  or alter the preliminary decree or pass another
  preliminary decree if the changed circumstances so
  require. It is true that the final decree is always required
D to be in conformity with the preliminary decree but that
  does not mean that a preliminary decree, before the final
  decree is passed, cannot be altered or amended or
  modified by the trial court in the event of changed or
  supervening circumstances even if no appeal has been
E preferred from such preliminary decree. [Paras 21 and 22]
  [984-G-H; 985-A]

       1.6 The impugned judgment of the High Court is set
  aside and that of the trial court is restored. The trial court
F shall now proceed for the preparation of the final decree
  in terms of its order dated June 15, 2009. [Para 24) [985-
    C]
        Phoolchand and Anr. v. Gopal Lal AIR 1967 SC 1470;
    S. Sai Reddy vs. S. Narayana Reddy and Others (1991) 3
G   sec 647 - relied on
                        Case Law Reference:
         AIR 1967 SC 1470      Relied on       Para 19, 20, 23

H        (1991) 3 sec 647      Relied on       Para 19, 23
  GANDURI KOTESHWARAMMA & ANR. v. CHAKIRI                     973
               YANADI & ANR.

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.                  A
8538 of 2011.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 26.08.2009 of the
High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in AS No. 462 of
2009.
                                                                     B
     R. Nedumaran (for Promila) for the appellants.
    G.V.R. Choudary, K. Shivraj Chaudhuri and A. Chandra
Sekhar for the Respondents.

     The following Judgment of the Court was delivered
                                                                     c
     R.M. LODHA, J. 1. Leave granted.

     2. The question that arises in this appeal, by special leave,
is: whether the benefits of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act,        o
2005 are available to the appellants.

     3. The appellants and the respondents are siblings being
daughters and sons of Chakiri Venkata Swamy. The 1st
respondent (plaintiff) filed a suit for partition in the court of    E
Senior Civil Judge, Ongole impleading his father Chakiri
Venkata Swamy (1st defendant), his brother Chakiri Anji Babu
(2nd defendant) and his two sisters - the present appellants -
as 3rd and 4th defendant respectively. In respect of schedule
properties 'A', 'C' and 'D' - coparcenary property- the plaintiff
claimed that he, 1st defendant and 2nd defendant have 1/3rd          F
share each. As regards schedule property 'B'-as the property
belonged to his mother-he claimed that all the parties have
1/5th equal share.

     4. The 1st defendant died in 1993 during the pendency of        G
the suit.

     5 . The trial court vide its judgment and preliminary decree
dated March 19, 1999 declared that plaintiff was entitled to 1/
3rd share in the schedule 'A', 'C' and 'D' properties and further    H
    974     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 12 S.C.R.


A entitled to 1/4th share in the 1/3rd share left by the 1st
  defendant. As regards schedule property 'B' the plaintiff was
  declared to be entitled to 1/5th share. The controversy in the
  present appeal does not relate to schedule 'B' property and is
  confined to schedule 'A', 'C' and 'D' properties. The trial court
B ordered for separate enquiry as regards mesne profits.

       6. The above preliminary decree was amended on
  September 27, 2003 declaring that plaintiff was entitled to equal
  share along with 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendant in 1/5th share left
C by the 1st defendant in schedule property 'B'.

       7. In furtherance of the preliminary decree dated March 19,
  1999 and the amended preliminary decree dated September
  27, 2003, the plaintiff made two applications before the trial
  court (i) for passing the final decree in terms thereof; and (ii)
D for determination of mesne profits. The trial court appointed the
  Commissioner for division of the schedule property and in that
  regard directed him to submit his report. The Commissioner
  submitted his report.

E      8. In the course of consideration of the report submitted
  by the Commissioner and before passing of the final decree,
  the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (for short, '2005
  Amendment Act') came into force on September 9, 2005. By
  2005 Amendment Act, Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act,
F 1956 (for short '1956 Act') was substituted. Having regard to
  2005 Amendment Act which we shall refer to appropriately at
  a later stage, the present appellants (3rd and 4th defendant)
  made an application for passing the preliminary decree in their
  favour for partition of schedule properties 'A', 'C' and 'D' into
  four equal shares; allot one share to each of them by metes
G and bounds and for delivery of possession.

       9. The application made by 3rd and 4th defendant was
  contested by the plaintiff. Insofar as 2nd defendant is
  concerned he admitted that the 3rd and 4th defendant are
H entitled to share as claimed by them pursuant to 2005
  GANDURI KOTESHWARAMMA & ANR. v. CHAKIRI                      975
        YANADI & ANR. [R.M. LODHA, J.]

Amendment Act but he also submitted that they were liable for          A
the debts of the family.

     10. The trial court, on hearing the parties, by its order dated
June 15, 2009, allowed the application of the present appellants
(3rd and 4th defendant) and held that they were entitled for re-
                                                                       8
allotment of shares in the preliminary decree, i.e., they are
entitled to 1/4th share each and separate possession in
schedule properties 'A', 'C' and 'D'.

     11. The plaintiff (present respondent no. 1) challenged the
order of the trial court in appeal before the Andhra Pradesh           C
High Court. The Single Judge by his order dated August 26,
2009 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the trial
court.

     12. 1956 Act is an Act to codify the law relating to intestate    o
succession among Hindus. This Act has brought about
important changes in the law of succession but without affecting
the special rights of the members of a Mitakshara Coparcenary.
The Parliament felt that non-inclusion of daughters in the
Mitakshara Coparcenary property was causing discrimination             E
to them and, accordingly, decided to bring in necessary
changes in the law. The statement of objects and reasons of
the 2005 Amendment Act, inter alia, reads as under :

    " ....... The retention of the Mitakshara coparcenary
    property without including the females in it means that the F
    females CC!nnot inherit in ancestral property as their male
    counterparts do. The law by excluding the daughter from
    participating in the coparcenary ownership not only
    contributes to her discrimination on the ground of gender
    but also has led to oppression and negation of her G
    fundamental right of equality guaranteed by the .
    Constitution. Having regard to the need to render social
    justice to women, the States of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil
    Nadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra have made.necessary
                                                                H
        976          SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2011] 12 S.C.R.


    A         changes in the law giving equal right to daughters in Hindu
              Mitakshara coparcenary property."

             13. With the above object in mind, the Parliament
        substituted the existing Section 6 of the 1956 Act- by a new
        provision vide 2005 Amendment Act. After substitution, the new
    8
        Section 6 reads as follows :

              "6. Devolution of interest in coparcenary property.- (1) On
              and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession
              (Amendment) Act, 2005, in a Joint Hindu family governed
    c         by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener
              shall,-

               (a)    by birth become a coparcener in her own right in
                      the same manner as the son;
    D          (b}    have the same rights in the coparcenary property
                      as she would have had if she had been a son;

               (c)    be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the
                      said coparcenary property as that of a son,
    E
              and any reference to a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall
              be deemed to include a reference to a daughter of a
              coparcener:

              Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall
    F         affect or invalidate any disposition or alienation including
              any partition or testamentary disposition of property which
              had taken place before the 20th day of December, 2004.

              (2) Any property to which a female Hindu becomes entitled
    G         by virtue of sub-section (1) 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 in, as property capable of
              being disposed of by her by testamentary disposition.
    H
•
GANDURI KOTESHWARAMMA & ANR. v. CHAKIRI                    977
      YANADI & ANR. [R.M. LODHA, J.]

  (3) Where a Hindu dies after the commencement of the A
  Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, his interest in
  the property of a Joint Hindu family governed by the
  Mitakshara law, shall devolve by testamentary or intestate
  succession, as the case may be, under this Act and not
  by survivorship, and the coparcenary property shall be B
  deemed to have been divided as if a partition had taken
  place and,-

   (a)   the daughter is allotted the same share as is allotted
         to a son;
                                                                   c
   (b)   the share of the pre-deceased son or a pre-
         deceased daughter, as they would have got had
         they been alive at the time of partition, shall be
         allotted to the surviving child of such pre-deceased
         son or of such pre-deceased daughter; and            D
   (c)   the share of the pre-deceased child of a pre-
         deceased son or of a pre-deceased daughter, as
         such child would have got had he or she been alive
         at the time of the partition, shall be allotted to the E
         child of such pre-deceased child of the pre-
         deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter, as the
         case may be.

  Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-section, the
  interest of a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed        F
  to be the share in the property that would have been
  allotted to him if a partition of the property had taken place
  immediately before his death, irrespective of whether he
  was entitled to claim partition or not.
                                                                   G
  (4) After the commencement of the Hindu Succession
  (Amendment) Act, 2005, no court shall recognise any right
  to proceed against a son, grandson or great-grandson for
  the recovery of any debt due from his father, grandfather
  or great-grandfather solely on the ground of the pious H
    978          SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011] 12 S.C.R.


A         obligation under the Hindu law, of such son, grandson or
          great-grandson to discharge any such debt:

          Provided that in the case of any debt contracted before
          the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment)
          Act, 2005, nothing contained in this sub-section shall
B
          affect-

           (a)    the right of any creditor to proceed against the son,
                  grandson or great-grandson, as the case may be;
                  or
c
           (b)    any alienation made in respect of or in satisfaction
                  of, any such debt, and any such right or alienation
                  shall t,>e enforceable under the rule of pious
                  obligation in the same manner and to the same
D                 extent as it would have been enforceable as if the
                  Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 had not
                  been enacted.

          Exp/anation.-For the purposes of clause (a), the
          expression "son", "grandson" or "great-grandson" shall be
E         deemed to refer to the son, grandson or great-grandson,
          as the case may be, who was born or adopted prior to the
          commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment)
          Act, 2005.

F         (5) Nothing contained in this section shall apply to a
          partition, which has been effected before the 20th day of
          December, 2004.

          Explanation. -For the purposes of this section "partition"
          means any partition made by execution of a deed of
G         partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908
          (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court."

       14. The new Section 6 provides for parity of rights in the
  coparcenary property among male and female members of a
H joint Hindu family on and from September 9, 2005. The
  GANDURI KOTESHWARAMMA & ANR. v. CHAKIRI                   979
        YANADI & ANR. [R.M. LODHA, J.]

  Legislature has now conferred substantive right in favour of the A
  daughters. According to the new Section 6, the daughter of a
· copercener becomes a coparcener by birth in her own rights.
  and liabilities in the same manner as the son. The declaration
  in Section 6 that the daughter of the coparcener shall have
  same rights and liabilities in the coparcenary property as she B
  would have been a son is unambiguous and unequivocal. Thus,
  on and from September 9, 2005, the daughter is entitled to a
  share in the ancestral property and is a coparcener as if she
  had been a son.

      15. The right accrued to a daughter in the property of a C
joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara Law, by virtue of
the 2005 Amendment Act, is absolute, except in the
circumstances provided in the proviso appended to sub-section
(1) of Section 6. The excepted categories to which new Section
6 of the 1956 Act is not applicable are two, namely, (i) where D
the disposition or alienation including any partition has taken
place before December 20, 2004; and (ii) where testamentary
disposition of property has been made before December 20,
2004. Sub- section (5) of Section 6 leaves no room for doubt
as it provides that this Section shall not apply to the partition E
which has been effected before December 20, 2004. For the
purposes of new Section 6 it is explained that 'partition' means
any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly
registered under the Registration Act 1908 or partition effected
by a decree of a court. In light of a clear provision contained in F
the Explanation appended to sub-section (5) of Section 6, for
determining the non-applicability of the Section, what is relevant
is to find out whether the partition has been effected before
December 20, 2004 by deed of partition duly registered under
the Registration Act, 1908 or by a decree of a court. In the G
backdrop of the above legal position with reference to Section
6 brought in the 1956 Act by the 2005 Amendment Act, the
question that we have to answer is as to whether the preliminary
decree passed by the trial court on March 19, 1999 and
amended on September 27, 2003 deprives the appellants of H
    980       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 12 S.C.R.


A the benefits of 2005 Amendment Act although final decree for
  partition has not yet been passed.

        16. The legal position is settled that partition of a Joint
  Hindu family can be effected by various modes, inter-alia, two
  of these modes are (one) by a registered instrument of a
8
  partition and (two) by a decree of the court. In the present case,
  admittedly, the partition has not been effected before December
  20, 2004 either by a registered instrument of partition or by a
  decree of the court. The only stage t~at has reached in the suit
  for partition filed by the respondent no.1 is the determination
C of shares vide preliminary decree dated March 19, 1999 which
  came to be amended on September 27, 2003 and the receipt
  of the report of the Commissioner.

       17. A preliminary decree determines the rights and
D interests of the parties. The suit for partition is not disposed of
  by passing of the preliminary decree. It is by a final decree that
  the immovable property of joint Hindu family is partitioned by
  metes and bounds. After the passing of the preliminary decree,
  the suit continues until the final decree is passed. If in the
E interregnum i.e. after passing of the preliminary decree and
  before the final decree is passed, the events and supervening
  circumstances occur necessitating change in shares, there is
  no impediment for the court to amend the preliminary decree
  or pass another preliminary decree redetermining the rights
F and interests of the parties having regard to the changed
  situation. We are fortified in our view by a 3- Judge Bench
  decision of this Court in the case of Phoolchand and Anr. Vs. ,
  Gopal La/1 wherein this Court stated as follows:

          "We are of opinion that there is nothing in the Code of Civil
G         Procedure which prohibits the passing of more than one
          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 ......
H 1. AIR1967SC1470.
      GANDURI KOTESHWARAMMA & ANR. v. CHAKIRI                      981
            YANADI & ANR. [R.M. LODHA, J.]

        So far therefore as partition suits are concerned we have          A
        no doubt that if an event transpires after the preliminary
        decree which necessitates a change in shares, the court
        can and should do so; ........... there is no prohibition in the
        Code of Civil Procedure against passing a second
        preliminary decree in such circumstances and we do not             B
        see why we should rule out a second preliminary decree
        in such circumstances only on the ground that the Code
        of Civil Procedure does not contemplate such a possibility .
        . . for it must not be forgotten that the suit is not over till
        the final decree is passed and the court has jurisdiction          c
        to decide all disputes that may arise after the preliminary
        decree, particularly in a partition suit due to deaths of
        some of the parties ..... a second preliminary decree can·
        be passed in partition suits by which the shares allotted
        in the preliminary decree already pa~sed can be amended
                                                                           0
        and if there is dispute between suriiving parties in that
        behalf and that dispute is decided the decision amounts
        to a decree ................. "

       18. This Court in the case of S. Sai Reddy vs. S.
  Narayana Reddy and Others2 had an occasion tq consider the               E
  question identical to the question with which we are faced in
  the present appeal. That was a case where during the pendency
  of the proceedings in the suit for partition before the trial court
  and prior to the passing of final decree, the 1956 Act was
  amended by the State Legislature of Andhra Pradesh as a                  F
  result of which unmarried daughters became entitled to a share
  in the joint family property. The unmarried daughters
  respondents 2 to 5 therein made application before the trial
  court claiming their share in the property after the State
  amendment in the 1956 Act. The trial court by its judgment and           G
  order dated August 24, 1989 rejected their application on the
  ground that the preliminary decree had already been passed
  and specific shares of the parties had been declared and, thus,
. it was not open to the unmarried daughters to claim share in
 2.    (1991 > 3 sec 647.                                                  H
    982        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 12 S.C.R.


A the property by virtue of the State amendment in the 1956 Act.
  The unmarried daughters preferred revision against the order
  of the trial court before the High Court. The High Court set aside
  the order of the trial court and declared that in view of the newly
  added Section 29-A, the unmarried daughters were entitled to
B share in the joint family property. The High Court further directed
  the trial court to determine the shares of the unmarried
  daughters accordingly. The appellant therein challenged the
  order of the High Court before- this Court. This Court considered
  the matter thus;
c         "......... A partition of the joint Hindu family can be effected
          by various modes, viz., 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
D         determining shares of the members of the family. The final
          decree follows, 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
E         possession of the respective property, the partition is not
          complete. The 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
F         case, there is no dispute that only a preliminary decree
          had been passed and before the final decree could be
          passed the amending Act came into force as a result of
          which clause (it) of Section 29-A of the Act became
          applicable. This intervening event which gave shares to
G         respondents 2 to 5 had the effect of varying shares of the
          parties like any supervening development. 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
H         necessary to give a liberal effect to it. For this reason also,
 GANDURI KOTESHWARAMMA & ANR. v. CHAKIRI                      983
       YANADI & ANR. [R.M. LODHA, J.]

    we cannot equate the concept of partition that the                A
    legislature has in mind in the present case with a mere
    severance of the status of the joint family which c:;an be
    effected by an expression of a mere desire by a family
    member to do so. The partition that the legislature has in
    mind in the present case is undoubtedly a partition               B
    completed in all respects and which has brought about an
    irreversible situation. A preliminary decree which merely
    declares shares which are themselves liable fo change
    does not bring about any irreversible situation. Hence, we
    are of the view that unless a partition of the property is        c
    effected by metes and pounds, the daughters cannot be
    deprived of the benefits conferred by the Act. Any other
    view is likely to deprive a vast section of the fair sex of the
    benefits conferred by the amendment. Spuri9us family
    settlements, instruments of partitions not to speak of oral       0
    partitions will spring up and nullify the beneficial effect of
    the legislation depriving a vast section of women of its
    benefits".

     19. The above legal position is wholly and squarely
applicable to the present case. It surprises us that the High         E
Court was not apprised of the decisions of this Court in
Phoo/chand 1 and S. Sai Reddy2 • High Court considered the
matter as follows:

           "In the recent past, the Parliament amended Section        F
    6 of the Hindu Succession Act (for short 'the Act'),
    according status of coparceners to the female members
    of the family also. Basing their claim on amended Section
    6 of the Act, the respondents 1 and 2 i.e., defendants 3
    and 4 filed I.A. No. 564 of 2007 under Order XX Rule 18           G
    of C.P.C., a provision, which applies only to preparation
    of final decree. It hardly needs an emphasis that a final
    decree is always required to be in conformity with the
    preliminary decree. If any party wants alteration or change
    of preliminary decree, the only course open to him or her         H
    984       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 12 S.C.R.


A         is to file an appeal or to seek other remedies vis-a-vis the
          prelim'inary decree. As long as the preliminary decree
          stands, the allotment of shares cannot be in a manner
          different from what is ordained in it."

        20. The High Court was clearly in error in not properly
8
   appreciating the scope of Order XX Rule 18 of C.P.C. In a suit
   for partition of immovable property, if such property is not
   assessed to the payment of revenue to the government,
   ordinarily passing of a preliminary decree declaring the share
  of the parties may be required. The court would thereafter
C proceed for preparation of final decree. In Phoo/chand 1, this
   Court has stated the legal position that C.P.C. creates no
   impediment for even more than one preliminary decree if after
  passing of the preliminary decree events have taken place
  necessitating the readjustment of shares as declared in the
D preliminary decree. The court has always power to revise the
  preliminary decree or pass another preliminary decree if the
  situation in the changed circumstances so demand. A suit for
  partition continues after the passing of ll1e preliminary decree
  and the proceedings in the suit get extinguished only on passing
E of the final decree. It is not correct statement of law that once
  a preliminary decree has been passed, it is not capable of
  modification. It needs no emphasis that the rights of the parties
  in a partition suit should be settled once for all in that suit alone
  and no other proceedings.
F
       21. Section 97 of C. P.C. that provides that where any
  party aggrieved by a preliminary decree passed after the
  commencement of the Code does not appeal from such
  decree, he shall be precluded from disputing its correctness
G in any appeal which may be preferred from the final decree
  does not create any hindrance or obstruction in the power of
  the court to modify, amend or alter the preliminary decree or
  pass another preliminary decree if the changed circumstances
  so require.

H       22. It is true that final decree is always required to be in
 GANDURI KOTESHWARAMMA & ANR. v. CHAKIRI                  985
       YANADI & ANR. [R.M. LODHA, J.]
conformity with the preliminary decree but that does not mean     A
that a preliminary decree, before the final decree is passed,
cannot be altered or amended or modified by the trial court in
the event of changed or supervening circumstances even if no
appeal has been preferred from such preliminary decree. ·
                                                                  B
    23. The view of the High Court is against law and the
decisions of this Court in Phoolchand1 and S.Sai Reddy2.

       24. We accordingly allow this appeal; set aside the
impugned judgment of the High Court and restore the order of
the trial court dated June 15, 2009. The trial court shall now    C
proceed for the preparation of the final decree in terms of its
order dated June 15, 2009. No costs.

N.J.                                          Appeal allowed.