JUDGEMENT
ARUN MISHRA, J. -
(1.)The question concerning the interpretation of section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (in short, 'the Act of 1956') as amended by Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (in short, 'the Act of 2005') has been referred to a larger Bench in view of the conflicting verdicts rendered in two Division Bench judgments of this Court in Prakash and Ors. vs. Phulavati and Ors., (2016) 2 SCC 36 and Danamma @ Suman Surpur and Anr. vs. Amar and Ors., (2018) 3 SCC 343. In other connected matters, the question involved is similar; as such, they have also been referred for hearing along.
(2.)In the case of Lokmani and Ors. vs. Mahadevamma and Ors., [S.L.P.(C) No.6840 of 2016] the High Court held that section 6, as amended by the Act of 2005, is deemed to be there since 17.6.1956 when the Act of 1956 came into force, the amended provisions are given retrospective effect, when the daughters were denied right in the coparcenary property, pending proceedings are to be decided in the light of the amended provisions. Inequality has been removed. The High Court held that the oral partition and unregistered partition deeds are excluded from the definition of 'partition' used in the Explanation to amended Section 6(5).
(3.)In Balchandra vs. Smt. Poonam and Ors. [SLP [C] No.35994/2015], the question raised is about the retrospectivity of section 6 as substituted by Amendment Act, 2005 and in case the father who was a coparcener in the joint Hindu family, was not alive when the Act of 2005 came into force, whether daughter would become a coparcener of joint Hindu family property.