Case law :

Ms. Vaishali Satish Ganorkar &

Anr vs Mr. Satish Keshaorao
Ganorkar & on 30 January, 2012

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA

Facts
• The appellants are the daughters of Respondents No. 1 they took out a debt from
the bank that was never repaid. The appellants have filed a lawsuit to safeguard
their ownership interest in the land. As coparceners of the Hindu Undivided
Family, they claim a two-thirds stake. The appeal was considered to determine
whether the appellants had a cause of action to sue, i.e. if they have an
enforceable claim in the suit property.
• The arguments in the Appeal have been based solely on that right. If they cannot
demonstrate any legal entitlement as HUF coparceners, no ad-interim remedy
may be awarded in their complaint. In 1959, the Mahadevo (Appellant's great
grandfather)properties were partitioned. Keshaorao (appellant's father) was
given a property in Camp, Amravati, which consisted of a three-story mansion
known as Khinkhinwale. Respondent No.1 obtained an equitable mortgage on the
suit property in order to get a cash-credit facility.
 Arguments

• The appellants' case for claiming ⅔rd right in the suit

property is upon the fact that the suit property is
purchased from the nucleus of the HUF initially
constituted by their grandfather who in turn acquired a
property upon partition with his father (the appellants'
great grandfather Mahadevo). 
  
•  It was contended on behalf of the appellants that section
6 of the Amendment Act is retrospective in operation and
hence all daughters of all coparceners would have the
interest devolved upon them even if they were born prior
to the Amendment Act and even if the succession opened
earlier than the Amendment Act. It was also contended
on behalf of the appellants that any daughter born even
prior to the Amendment Act would be a coparcener as to
have an equal, undivided interest in the coparcenary
properties. 
Issues

1. Whether the daughters’ 2. Whether the amended act

have right to the property? has any retrospective effect?
Interpretation of section 6
• As we have heard the applicants arguments advanced and issues raised by the applicants i.e daughter. We
shall now move on to the interpretation made by the court of section 6 of Hindu succession act 1956.
• The court stated that this contention is made wholly disregarding the subtitle of the section. The subtitle of
a section is required to be considered in the interpretation of the section and hence the devolution of the
interest is condition precedent for any claim in coparcenary interest.
• The court mainly focused " on and from"   and " shall " .
•  The express words in the section clearly indicate the intention of the legislature to make daughters
coparceners in coparcenary property on and from the date the Amendment Act came into force. The Act
also clearly shows that from that date they shall become coparceners with the same rights and liabilities
and the reference to the Mitakshara would also be reference including the daughter from then on. The
express provisions in the Act are, therefore, inconsistent with any retrospectivity.
• For this the court take the reference of this case  Sugalabai v. Gundappa A. Maradi.
• In the mentioned case i.e Sugalabai v. Gundappa A. Maradi on and from was explained as " immediately
and after " Hence immediately and after the commencement of the Act the daughter of a coparcener
became by birth a coparcener in her own right as the son.
 Judgement
• The Bombay High Court Division bench observed
that the act should be applied retrospectively unless
explicitly mentioned as the words “on and from” in
Section 6 (1) of the Act after amendment shows its
prospective nature. 
• And they held that the daughters born on or after
9th September’ 2005 will only be considered as
coparceners and those who are born prior to the
aforesaid date will devolve an interest in the
coparcener property only after his death by means
succeeding his interest.
• However, in the case of Shri Badrinarayan Shankar
Bhandari & Ors. v. Ompraskash Shankar, a Full Judge
bench of the same court disagreed, stating that
there are two prerequisite requirements for the
implication of revised section 6(1) of the act.
 Thankyou

Presented by-
Avantika Verma
Aeshita Marwah
Prachi Singh
Rik Sarkar