{"id":4840,"date":"2025-02-15T17:13:04","date_gmt":"2025-02-15T11:43:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/?p=4840"},"modified":"2025-03-12T01:28:49","modified_gmt":"2025-03-11T19:58:49","slug":"prakash-vs-phulavati-air-2016-sc-769-case-summary","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/prakash-vs-phulavati-air-2016-sc-769-case-summary\/","title":{"rendered":"Prakash vs Phulavati  2016 (Case Summary)\u200b"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t<div data-elementor-type=\"wp-post\" data-elementor-id=\"4840\" class=\"elementor elementor-4840\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<section class=\"elementor-section elementor-top-section elementor-element elementor-element-917020f elementor-section-full_width elementor-section-height-default elementor-section-height-default wpr-particle-no wpr-jarallax-no wpr-parallax-no wpr-sticky-section-no wpr-equal-height-no\" data-id=\"917020f\" data-element_type=\"section\" data-e-type=\"section\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-container elementor-column-gap-default\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-column elementor-col-100 elementor-top-column elementor-element elementor-element-5aa9190\" data-id=\"5aa9190\" data-element_type=\"column\" data-e-type=\"column\">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-wrap elementor-element-populated\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<section class=\"elementor-section elementor-inner-section elementor-element elementor-element-0360c7f elementor-section-boxed elementor-section-height-default elementor-section-height-default wpr-particle-no wpr-jarallax-no wpr-parallax-no wpr-sticky-section-no wpr-equal-height-no\" data-id=\"0360c7f\" data-element_type=\"section\" data-e-type=\"section\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-container elementor-column-gap-default\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-column elementor-col-100 elementor-inner-column elementor-element elementor-element-f71d46a\" data-id=\"f71d46a\" data-element_type=\"column\" data-e-type=\"column\">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-wrap elementor-element-populated\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-d818b36 elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading\" data-id=\"d818b36\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"heading.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<h1 class=\"elementor-heading-title elementor-size-default\">Prakash vs Phulavati 2016\n(Case Summary)<\/h1>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-e246dd3 elementor-widget elementor-widget-image\" data-id=\"e246dd3\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"image.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<img fetchpriority=\"high\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1312\" height=\"736\" src=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-case-summary-with-the-bold-text-prakas_gsto_6EIQNumKq-vI2YlEw_xskkuxCeSYa_eKJD_KRmKw.jpeg\" class=\"attachment-1536x1536 size-1536x1536 wp-image-4842\" alt=\"Prakash vs Phulavati AIR 2016 SC 769\" srcset=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-case-summary-with-the-bold-text-prakas_gsto_6EIQNumKq-vI2YlEw_xskkuxCeSYa_eKJD_KRmKw.jpeg 1312w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-case-summary-with-the-bold-text-prakas_gsto_6EIQNumKq-vI2YlEw_xskkuxCeSYa_eKJD_KRmKw-300x168.jpeg 300w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-case-summary-with-the-bold-text-prakas_gsto_6EIQNumKq-vI2YlEw_xskkuxCeSYa_eKJD_KRmKw-1024x574.jpeg 1024w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-case-summary-with-the-bold-text-prakas_gsto_6EIQNumKq-vI2YlEw_xskkuxCeSYa_eKJD_KRmKw-150x84.jpeg 150w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-case-summary-with-the-bold-text-prakas_gsto_6EIQNumKq-vI2YlEw_xskkuxCeSYa_eKJD_KRmKw-768x431.jpeg 768w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 1312px) 100vw, 1312px\" title=\"\">\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-0d9ee86 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"0d9ee86\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">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 <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/vineeta-sharma-v-rakesh-sharma-2020-9-scc-576-case-summary\/\"><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma (2020)<\/span><\/i><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">. In Vineeta Sharma, the court addressed the restrictive interpretation adopted in Prakash vs. Phulavati regarding the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.<\/span><\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 ez-toc-wrap-left counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-custom ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #000000;color:#000000\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #000000;color:#000000\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/prakash-vs-phulavati-air-2016-sc-769-case-summary\/#Facts_of_Prakash_v_Phulavati\" >Facts of Prakash v Phulavati<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/prakash-vs-phulavati-air-2016-sc-769-case-summary\/#Issues_framed\" >Issues framed<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/prakash-vs-phulavati-air-2016-sc-769-case-summary\/#Subordinate_Court_Judgment\" >Subordinate Court Judgment\u00a0\u00a0<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/prakash-vs-phulavati-air-2016-sc-769-case-summary\/#Judgment_of_Prakash_v_Phulavati\" >Judgment of Prakash v Phulavati<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/prakash-vs-phulavati-air-2016-sc-769-case-summary\/#Read_the_Judgment_Below\" >Read the Judgment Below<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Facts_of_Prakash_v_Phulavati\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Facts of Prakash v Phulavati<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><ol><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Phulavati (the respondent-plaintiff), filed a partition suit before the Additional Civil Judge, Belgaum.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">She sought partition and separate possession of her share in the properties listed in Schedules \u2018A\u2019 to \u2018G\u2019 of the plaint.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The suit properties were inherited by Phulavati\u2019s father, Yeshwanth Chandrakant Upadhye, from his adoptive mother, Smt. Sunanda Bai.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Yeshwanth Chandrakant passed away on February 18, 1988, prior to the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Initially, the plaintiff sought her share based on notional partition under the unamended Hindu Succession Act, 1956.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The trial court awarded her a limited share (1\/28th) in certain properties based on notional partition at the time of her father\u2019s death in 1988.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">During the pendency of the case, the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 came into force.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The plaintiff amended her claim, asserting her equal coparcenary rights under the 2005 amendment and sought a larger share in the ancestral properties.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The defendants argued that since Yeshwanth Chandrakant (the plaintiff\u2019s father) had passed away before the amendment came into effect, the plaintiff could not claim coparcenary rights under the amended law.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">They relied on the principle that succession rights crystallize at the time of a coparcener\u2019s death and cannot be altered by subsequent legislation unless explicitly stated.<\/span><\/li><\/ol><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Issues_framed\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Issues framed<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><ol><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Whether the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, applies retrospectively to daughters whose fathers (coparceners) died before September 9, 2005?<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Whether the plaintiff could claim coparcenary rights under the 2005 amendment even though her father had passed away in 1988?<\/span><\/li><\/ol><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Subordinate_Court_Judgment\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Subordinate Court Judgment\u00a0\u00a0<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">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&#8217;s properties, as they were inherited from his adoptive mother and classified as joint family properties.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The trial court ruled that, based on the notional partition that occurred at the time of her father&#8217;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\u2019s death.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Karnataka High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the 2005 amendment applied to pending proceedings. It reasoned that any \u201cdevelopment of law\u201d 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\u2019s 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.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The defendants challenged the High Court\u2019s ruling before the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court, arguing that the 2005 amendment could not apply retrospectively to cases where the father had already died.<\/span><\/p><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judgment_of_Prakash_v_Phulavati\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Judgment of Prakash v Phulavati<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Hon\u2019ble 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.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The court held that the amendment only applies to living daughters of living coparceners as of September 9, 2005. Since the plaintiff\u2019s 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.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Supreme Court overturned the High Court\u2019s 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\u2019s interpretation of the law.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">This view of the Supreme Court was Highly criticized for misinterpretation of the Amendment. The loopholes in the case of <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Prakash vs Phulavati <\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">were corrected in a consequent Judgment by the Hon\u2019ble Supreme court in the case of <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/vineeta-sharma-v-rakesh-sharma-2020-9-scc-576-case-summary\/\">Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma 2020<\/a>.<\/span><\/i><\/p><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Read_the_Judgment_Below\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><strong>Read the Judgment Below<\/strong><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-ad13ebd elementor-widget elementor-widget-pdfjs-viewer\" data-id=\"ad13ebd\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"pdfjs-viewer.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<iframe width=\"\" height=\"700\" src=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/plugins\/pdfjs-viewer-for-elementor\/\/assets\/js\/pdfjs\/web\/viewer.html?file=https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/prakash-v-phulawati-1.pdf\"><\/iframe>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>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. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":4842,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4],"tags":[113,110,121,112,108,109,12],"class_list":["post-4840","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-family-law","tag-113","tag-daughters-coparcenary-rights","tag-family-law-ii","tag-hindu-succession-amendment-act","tag-hindu-succession-act-1956","tag-hindu-undivided-family","tag-supreme-court"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4840","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4840"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4840\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4953,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4840\/revisions\/4953"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4842"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4840"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4840"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4840"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}