Introduction  

In this case, the Supreme Court invalidated the settlement deed not signed by all the parties. 

Facts 

• In this case, the Late, Mr. Prasanta Kumar Sahoo, had three children, Ms. Charulata (daughter), Ms. Santilal (daughter) and Mr. Prafulla (son). 
• Ms. Charulata filed a suit for partition of ancestral property of her father before the Trial Court in which trial court ordered as 
  • 1/6^th share of the ancestral property and 1/3rd of the self-acquired property of Mr. Sahoo along with the mesne profits in favor of both the daughters. 
  • 4/6^th share of the ancestral property and 1/3rd of the self-acquired property of Mr. Sahoo along with the mesne profits in favor of the son. 
• In furtherance to the decision of the Trial Court the petitioner (son) preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of High Court Orissa stating that all of Mr. Prasanta Kumar Sahoo’s properties were ancestral property only. 
• During the pendency of the appeal the plaintiff and Ms. Santilal entered a settlement where Ms. Santilal relinquished her whole share in the joint property in favor of the plaintiff in exchange for 50,000 Rs.  
• The settlement was however not signed by the defendant (daughter: Ms. Charulata). 
• The defendant filed a parallel appeal before the High Court questioning the validity of the Settlement deed. 
• The plaintiff filed a compromise petition, and the High Court validated the Settlement deed. 
• A Letters Patent Appeal was filed by the plaintiff before the Division Bench of High Court Orissa with the same issue that all of Mr. Sahoo’s properties were ancestral property only, which was not settled in the earlier appeals. 
• The high Court dismissed the appeal and invalidated the Settlement Deed. 
• The plaintiff aggrieved with the decision of the High Court filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.  

Issues Involved  

• Whether the substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 would apply to cases where male coparcener had already died prior to the commencement of the Amendment Act, 2005? 
• Whether all the parties in a joint property are required to sign a deed even when there is a transfer or settlement of right between two parties only? 

Observations 

• The Supreme Court emphasized on the judgement of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma and Ors (2020) where it was held that if any amendment is made to the prevailing law during the pendency of appeal or between passing of the preliminary decree or final decree then the amending provisions can be considered while making of the final decree by the court. 
• The Supreme Court observed as per Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, any compromise or settlement must be in writing and signed by all the parties. 

Conclusion 

• The Supreme Court varied the final decree based on the 2005 amendment. 
• The Supreme Court observed as per Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and held the deed unlawful if not signed by all the co-owners in a joint property.