Introduction 

• The question before the Court was whether a preliminary decree for partition and possession of suit properties, passed prior to the enforcement of the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (as revised by the Amendment Act, 2005), could be modified before the final decree, particularly when daughters were already parties to the suit.  
• This raised important considerations regarding the rights of daughters as coparceners under the amended law. 

Facts of the Case 

• The appellants and respondents were siblings, daughters, and sons of Chakiri Venkata Swamy.  
• The first respondent (plaintiff) filed a suit for partition in the Senior Civil Judge’s court at Ongole, involving his father Chakiri Venkata Swamy (1st defendant), his brother Chakiri Anji Babu (2nd defendant), and his two sisters (the appellants) as the 3rd and 4th defendants. 
• The plaintiff claimed a 1/3rd share in the coparcenary properties listed under schedules 'A', 'C', and 'D' and a 1/5th share in schedule property 'B', which belonged to his mother.  
• The trial court declared on March 19, 1999, that the plaintiff was entitled to 1/3rd of the properties under schedules 'A', 'C', and 'D' and 1/4th of the 1/3rd share left by the deceased 1st defendant. The plaintiff also received a 1/5th share in property 'B'. 
• The preliminary decree was amended on 27th September 2003, and the trial court initiated proceedings for the final decree. Before the final decree was passed, the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 came into force, which affected the rights of the daughters (appellants) under the new Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 
• The appellants filed an application for the reallocation of shares under the amended Act, seeking a 1/4th share each in the coparcenary properties (schedules 'A', 'C', and 'D'). The trial court allowed the application, but the High Court set aside this order. 

Issue Involved  

• Whether benefits of (Amendment) Act, 2005 were available to Appellants? 

Observations 

• The appeal was allowed, questioning whether the benefits of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, were available to the appellants (daughters). 
• The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, granted equal rights to daughters in coparcenary property, making them coparceners by birth with the same rights and liabilities as sons. The Act applied to all daughters, except in cases where the partition had already been effected before 20th December 2004. 
• The preliminary decree passed on 19th March 1999, and amended on September 27, 2003, did not constitute a final partition by metes and bounds. Since the final decree had not been passed, the appellants were entitled to the benefits of the 2005 Amendment Act. 
• The High Court erred in its interpretation of Order XX Rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) by concluding that the preliminary decree could not be modified. The court emphasized that a preliminary decree could be amended or altered before the final decree in light of changed circumstances. 

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision and restored the trial court’s order, holding that the appellants were entitled to 1/4^th share each in the coparcenary properties under the schedules 'A', 'C', and 'D'.  
• The Court reiterated that the rights of the parties in a partition suit should be settled once for all in the suit, and the 2005 Amendment Act should be applied to ensure social justice for women as intended by the legislature.