Section 6(5) of the Hindu Succession Act Is Only a Saving Clause and Does Not Bar Daughters’ Partition Suit Based on Section 8 Rights

Held: The Supreme Court held that Section 6(5) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is a narrow saving clause and not a jurisdictional bar to the institution of a partition suit. It only saves valid partitions effected before 20.12.2004 by a registered deed or court decree from the retroactive operation of the 2005 Amendment, but it does not extinguish the independent rights of daughters as Class I heirs under Section 8 where such rights accrued on the intestate death of their father. The Court further held that a second application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, raising substantially the same plea already decided and having attained finality, is barred by res judicata, including interlocutory res judicata.

Summary: The appellants, being daughters of late Sri B.M. Seenappa who died intestate on 06.03.1985, filed a suit for partition claiming 1/8th share each in the suit properties. The defendants relied upon an alleged oral partition of 1985, a Palupatti of 1988, and a registered Partition Deed dated 16.06.2000 executed amongst the mother and sons, contending that the daughters had no subsisting right and that the suit was barred by Section 6(5) of the Hindu Succession Act. An earlier Order VII Rule 11 application had been rejected by the Karnataka High Court in 2013, holding that even assuming the daughters were not entitled as coparceners, they could still maintain the suit on the basis of their father’s intestate share under Section 8. A second Order VII Rule 11 application was later allowed by the High Court on the ground that Vineeta Sharma constituted a change in law and that Section 6(5) saved the 2000 partition. The Supreme Court reversed this view, holding that Vineeta Sharma did not alter the settled principle that daughters inherit as Class I heirs under Section 8 upon the intestate death of a Hindu male, and that questions regarding the validity and binding nature of the alleged partition required trial and could not be decided at the plaint-rejection stage.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in C.R.P. No. 144 of 2023, restored the Trial Court’s order dated 15.11.2022 dismissing the second Order VII Rule 11 application, and directed that the plaint in O.S. No. 5352/2007 stand restored to file. The Court further directed that the status quo order dated 25.10.2024 regarding the subject properties shall continue until further orders of the Trial Court, and requested the Trial Court to proceed with the suit expeditiously and endeavour to conclude the trial at an early date. Pending applications were disposed of, with no order as to costs.