The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has ruled that a second preliminary decree can and must be passed in partition suits to give effect to the equal coparcenary rights of daughters under the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act (HSA). A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Balaji Medamalli clarified that even if a preliminary decree has attained finality up to the Supreme Court, it remains open for modification as long as the final decree has not been passed, particularly when supervening changes in law or factual circumstances like deaths occur.
Legal Issue
The primary legal question was whether a decades-old preliminary decree, which had been affirmed by the Supreme Court through the dismissal of SLPs and curative petitions, could be modified to enhance a daughter’s share in light of the 2005 amendment to the HSA and the subsequent interpretation by the Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020).
The High Court answered in the affirmative, holding that partition is a continuing process until the final decree. The Court allowed the applications to modify the 2003 preliminary decree, increasing the daughter’s share from 1/6th to 1/4th (effectively 1/2 of her father’s interest) following the death of her mother during the pendency of the final decree proceedings.
Background of the Case
The litigation involved the family of late Vale Mareppa, who held a half-share in the suit properties and died in 1942. His widow, Vale Nagamma (Plaintiff 1), and daughter, Mandlem Veeramma (Plaintiff 2), filed a partition suit in 1988 against the heirs of Mareppa’s son, Busappa.
In 2003, the High Court passed a preliminary decree in appeal (A.S. No. 118 of 1990), granting a 1/3rd share each to the widow, the daughter, and the son out of Mareppa’s 1/2 interest. This resulted in a 1/6th share each for the three branches. Although this decree was affirmed by the Supreme Court by 2012, the final decree proceedings remained pending. In the interim, the widow passed away, and the daughter’s legal heirs sought a modification of the preliminary decree to claim an equal share as a coparcener and to inherit a portion of the deceased mother’s share.
Arguments of the Parties
Applicants: The applicants, including subsequent purchasers and legal heirs of the daughter, argued that the 2005 amendment to Section 6 of the HSA conferred the status of a coparcener on the daughter “by birth” in the same manner as a son. They cited the Supreme Court’s conclusion in Vineeta Sharma:
“Notwithstanding that a preliminary decree has been passed, the daughters are to be given share in coparcenary equal to that of a son in pending proceedings for final decree or in an appeal.”
They contended that the court was duty-bound to take notice of this change in law and the death of the widow to re-calculate the shares.
Respondents: The respondents argued that the applications were not maintainable because the 2003 decree had attained absolute finality. They further contended that since Mareppa died in 1942 (pre-1956), the Hindu Succession Act and its subsequent amendments would not apply. They relied on Arshnoor Singh v. Harpal Kaur to argue that succession had already opened and could not be disturbed.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court conducted an extensive analysis of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and the Hindu Succession Act:
1. On Multiple Preliminary Decrees: The Bench noted that Section 97 of the CPC, which precludes parties from disputing a preliminary decree in a final decree appeal if they didn’t appeal it initially, does not bar modifications due to supervening events. Quoting Phoolchand v. Gopal Lal, the Court observed:
“There is nothing in the Code of Civil 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.”
2. On the Applicability of the 2005 Amendment: The Court rejected the “date of death” argument raised by the respondents. It held that the daughter’s right as a coparcener is by birth and the father need not be alive on the date of the amendment (September 9, 2005). The Court stated:
“The date of death of the father is not relevant… The provisions of the substituted Section 6 are required to be given full effect… notwithstanding the death of her father in 1942.”
3. On the Inherent Power of the Court (Section 151 CPC): The Bench clarified that while Section 152 CPC is for clerical errors, Section 151 CPC (Inherent Powers) is the appropriate provision for modifying a decree due to changes in law or facts. It held that since the trial court’s decree merged into the High Court’s appellate decree, only the High Court could exercise this power.
4. On Succession of the Widow’s Share: The Court found that upon the widow’s death, her 1/6th share devolved equally upon her daughter and the heirs of her son under Section 15(1)(a) of the HSA. This calculation, combined with the equal coparcenary right, necessitated the enhancement of the daughter’s share.
Decision
The High Court allowed I.A. Nos. 1 and 3 of 2026 and ordered the following:
- Modification of Decree: The preliminary decree dated September 26, 2003, is modified to allot 1/2 share to the son (Busappa) and 1/2 share to the daughter (Mandlem Veeramma) out of Mareppa’s 1/2 interest in the coparcenary property (amounting to 1/4th of the total property each).
- Second Preliminary Decree: The Court directed that a second/modified preliminary decree be drawn up to reflect these correct shares.
- Timeline for Final Decree: The Trial Court was directed to conclude the final decree proceedings strictly in accordance with this modified decree within six months.
- Protection of Equities: For subsequent purchasers, the court clarified they are not entitled to the “enhanced” share but can have their equities adjusted based on their original sale deeds during the final decree stage.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Y. Rukinamma and others v. Smt. Sagire Nagendramma and others (with M. Indira and another v. Smt. Sagire Nagendramma and others)
- Case No.: I.A. Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 of 2026 in A.S. No. 118 of 1990
- Bench: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari & Justice Balaji Medamalli
- Date: May 5, 2026
