Second preliminary decree maintainable (Paras 47–53) Issue: Whether a preliminary decree in a partition suit can be modified by passing a second preliminary decree. Facts: Preliminary decree passed in appeal in 2003 granting shares to widow, daughter and son attained finality up to dismissal of SLP, review and curative petitions; during pendency of final decree proceedings, amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and death of first plaintiff altered the share position. Held: In partition suits, more than one preliminary decree can be passed if supervening events or change in law affect shares before final decree proceedings conclude; Court retains jurisdiction to suitably vary shares. (Paras 47–53)

advocatemmmohan

AP HIGH COURT HELD THAT 

Partition suit — Preliminary decree — Subsequent change in law and supervening events — Second preliminary decree maintainable (Paras 47–53)

Issue: Whether a preliminary decree in a partition suit can be modified by passing a second preliminary decree.
Facts: Preliminary decree passed in appeal in 2003 granting shares to widow, daughter and son attained finality up to dismissal of SLP, review and curative petitions; during pendency of final decree proceedings, amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and death of first plaintiff altered the share position.
Held: In partition suits, more than one preliminary decree can be passed if supervening events or change in law affect shares before final decree proceedings conclude; Court retains jurisdiction to suitably vary shares. (Paras 47–53)

---

Hindu Succession Act — Amended Section 6 — Daughter as coparcener — Applicability despite preliminary decree and father’s death prior to 1956 (Paras 31–43)

Issue: Whether daughter is entitled to equal coparcenary share under amended Section 6 despite father having died before 1956 and despite earlier preliminary decree.
Facts: Father died in 1942; daughter was already granted limited share under appellate preliminary decree; final decree proceedings remained pending after 2005 amendment and decision in Vineeta Sharma.
Held: Where partition was not completed before 20.12.2004 and daughter was alive on 09.09.2005, amended Section 6 applies fully; daughter is entitled to share equal to son notwithstanding earlier preliminary decree or father’s death prior to 1956. (Paras 31–43)

---

Partition proceedings — Final decree pending — Rights of daughter and subsequent purchasers — Maintainability of modification applications (Paras 12–13, 21, 23–25)

Issue: Whether applications by daughter’s legal heirs and subsequent purchasers seeking modification of preliminary decree are maintainable.
Facts: Subsequent purchasers from daughter and her legal representatives sought modification of appellate preliminary decree during pendency of final decree proceedings relying on amended Section 6 and Vineeta Sharma principles.
Held: Since final decree proceedings were still pending and shares remained liable to variation due to statutory changes and intervening events, applications seeking modification of preliminary decree were maintainable for consideration by the appellate Court. (Paras 12–13, 21, 23–25)