Prakash vs Phulavati 2016 (Case Summary)

This case, decided by the Supreme Court of India, involved the interpretation of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, particularly the question of its retrospective application to daughters seeking coparcenary rights. The decision in Prakash vs. Phulavati was later overruled by the Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma (2020). In Vineeta Sharma, the court addressed the restrictive interpretation adopted in Prakash vs. Phulavati regarding the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.

Table of Contents

Facts of Prakash v Phulavati

Phulavati (the respondent-plaintiff), filed a partition suit before the Additional Civil Judge, Belgaum.
She sought partition and separate possession of her share in the properties listed in Schedules ‘A’ to ‘G’ of the plaint.
The suit properties were inherited by Phulavati’s father, Yeshwanth Chandrakant Upadhye, from his adoptive mother, Smt. Sunanda Bai.
Yeshwanth Chandrakant passed away on February 18, 1988, prior to the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act.
Initially, the plaintiff sought her share based on notional partition under the unamended Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
The trial court awarded her a limited share (1/28th) in certain properties based on notional partition at the time of her father’s death in 1988.
During the pendency of the case, the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 came into force.
The plaintiff amended her claim, asserting her equal coparcenary rights under the 2005 amendment and sought a larger share in the ancestral properties.
The defendants argued that since Yeshwanth Chandrakant (the plaintiff’s father) had passed away before the amendment came into effect, the plaintiff could not claim coparcenary rights under the amended law.
They relied on the principle that succession rights crystallize at the time of a coparcener’s death and cannot be altered by subsequent legislation unless explicitly stated.

Issues framed

Whether the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, applies retrospectively to daughters whose fathers (coparceners) died before September 9, 2005?
Whether the plaintiff could claim coparcenary rights under the 2005 amendment even though her father had passed away in 1988?

Subordinate Court Judgment

The plaintiff (Phulavati) initially filed the suit in 1992, seeking partition and separate possession of her share in the properties under the unamended Hindu Succession Act, 1956 The suit claimed that she was entitled to a share in her late father’s properties, as they were inherited from his adoptive mother and classified as joint family properties.

The trial court ruled that, based on the notional partition that occurred at the time of her father’s death in 1988, the plaintiff was entitled to a 1/28th share in certain properties. In some properties, no share was awarded, while in others, a 1/7th share was granted. The ruling was based on the prevailing law (unamended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956) at the time of the father’s death.

The Karnataka High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the 2005 amendment applied to pending proceedings. It reasoned that any “development of law” applies to pending cases unless explicitly stated otherwise. The High Court ruled that the plaintiff became a coparcener by virtue of the 2005 amendment, with rights equal to those of her brothers. The notional partition at the time of her father’s death was irrelevant because the new law conferred rights retroactively. The High Court awarded the plaintiff a 1/7th share in all properties, excluding those already settled by valid transactions.

The defendants challenged the High Court’s ruling before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, arguing that the 2005 amendment could not apply retrospectively to cases where the father had already died.

Judgment of Prakash v Phulavati

The Hon’ble Supreme Court applied Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (as amended by the 2005 Amendment). The amendment conferred coparcenary rights to daughters by birth in the same manner as sons. Sub-section (5) of Section 6 preserved transactions (dispositions, alienations, or partitions) that took place before December 20, 2004. The court applied the rule that amendments to substantive law are presumed to be prospective unless expressly stated otherwise.

The court held that the amendment only applies to living daughters of living coparceners as of September 9, 2005. Since the plaintiff’s father had died in 1988, she did not qualify for coparcenary rights under the amendment. The court emphasized that amendments to substantive laws are presumed to be prospective unless expressly stated otherwise. The court emphasized that notional partitions arising from the death of a coparcener remain valid and unaffected by the amendment.

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision and ruled in favor of the defendants. The case was remanded to the High Court for a fresh decision in accordance with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the law.

This view of the Supreme Court was Highly criticized for misinterpretation of the Amendment. The loopholes in the case of Prakash vs Phulavati were corrected in a consequent Judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma 2020.