The Supreme Court declares the settlement deed invalid and rules in favour of daughters inheriting equal shares.
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the 1955 amendments to the Hindu Succession Act that made daughters co-proprietors on par with sons may be applied retroactively. In a case involving a dispute over ancestral property between Mr. Prafulla, Ms. Charlata, and Ms. Santilata, a ruling has been made.
The case dates back to March 28, 1991, when Mr. Prafulla and Ms. Charlata, however, did not sign the settlement deed because she had no interest in the joint property.
Mr. Prafulla, dissatisfied with the trial court’s ruling, filed an appeal with the High Court, asserting that all of Mr. Sahoo’s properties were ancestral. He continued to pursue the appeal before the High Court regarding the question of whether certain properties were inherited or self-obtained by his father. Ms. Charlata, meanwhile, contested the legality of the settlement deed.
The High Court judge ruled that the Settlement Deed was valid and that Mr. Prafulla was entitled to Ms. Santilata’s portion of the property. However, the question of which properties were ancestral or self-acquired was not addressed, and a letter patent appeal was filed with the Division Bench of the High Court solely on this issue.
On May 5, 2011, the Division Bench of the High Court denied Mr. Prafulla’s appeal and approved the Settlement Deed. Mr. Prafulla then filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, arguing that the 1955 Hindu Succession Act amendments could not be applied retroactively.
The Court noted that when a claim in a lawsuit is fully or partially settled through a legal agreement or compromise, the settlement must be in writing and signed by all parties. In this instance, the settlement deed was only executed between Mr. Prafulla and Ms. Santilata with regards to the property held jointly by all three siblings. Due to the fact that Ms. Charlata, the third sibling and co-owner of the shared property, did not sign the settlement, the court ruled that it was invalid for lacking the written consent of all parties. A decree by consent among only some parties cannot be upheld in a lawsuit involving the division of joint property.
The Bench affirmed the share allocation determined by the Trial Court and the Division Bench of the High Court and reassessed the parties’ shares. Mr. Prafulla could not claim Ms. Santilata’s 5 percent share after the court invalidated the settlement agreement.
The ruling is important because it reaffirms the rights of daughters as co-owners of ancestral property and establishes a precedent for future cases involving similar issues. The court also clarified that if the law governing the parties is amended prior to the conclusion of the final decree proceedings, the party who will benefit from the amendment may ask the Trial Court to take cognizance of the amendment and apply it.
The court’s decision is anticipated to have far-reaching repercussions and could affect similar cases across the nation. It is a step towards achieving gender equality in property rights and ensuring that daughters have equal ownership of ancestral properties.