There can be no dispute regarding the position of Law that after the
insertion of Sec 6A in the Hindu Succession Act,1956 by the Karnataka (
amendment) Act No 23 of 1994, an unmarried daughter will get the status of a
coparceners entitling her for equal rights with the son.
Unless a partition of the property is effected by metes and bounds ,the
daughters can not be deprived of the benifit s conferred by the Act . Any other
view is likely to deprive a vast section of fair sex of the benefits conferred
by the amendment.
Spurious family settlements, instruments of partition s not to speak of oral
partition s will spring up and nullify the beneficial effect of legislation
depriving a vast section of women of its benefits. It it's true that final
decree is always required to be in conformity with the preliminary decree but
that does not mean that a preliminary decree, before the final decree is passed
,can not be altered or amended or modified by the trial court in the event of
changed or supervening circumstances even if no appeal has been preferred from
such preliminary decree.
A person of this nature can not claim rights on par with other coparceners even
if he has some right conferred in terms of section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act
and nothing beyond at any rate that the judgement is not authority to hold that
a right conferred under Section 16 is not any way annulled because of customary