What did the Supreme Court decide in Ganduri Koteshwaramma?

It restored the trial court’s order and confirmed that daughters get equal coparcenary rights under the 2005 Amendment, with the same liabilities as sons.

Do daughters become coparceners under the 2005 Amendment?

Yes. Daughters are coparceners with the same rights and obligations as sons for intestate Mitakshara property from the commencement of the 2005 Amendment.

Can a preliminary decree be modified after 2005?

Yes, if final decree is not yet passed. The court can rework shares to reflect daughters’ equal rights under the 2005 Amendment.

Are there any exceptions to daughters’ new rights?

Yes. Dispositions, alienations, or partitions done before 20 December 2004, and testamentary dispositions before that date, remain protected.

Do daughters share family liabilities too?

Yes. Along with equal rights, daughters also bear equal obligations attached to coparcenary property.

Ganduri Koteshwaramma & Anr. v. Chakiri Yanadi & Anr

Ganduri Koteshwaramma & Anr. v. Chakiri Yanadi & Anr.

CASE_TITLE • PUBLISH_DATE: 2025-10-31 • AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi • LOCATION: India

PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: HSA 2005, daughters’ coparcenary, Section 6

SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: preliminary decree, partition, Mitakshara, mesne profits

Slug: ganduri-koteshwaramma-and-anr-v-chakiri-yanadi-and-anr

```

Quick Summary

This case clarifies the reach of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. Daughters became coparceners like sons. If the final decree is not yet passed, the court can rework shares in light of the 2005 change. Daughters get equal rights and also equal liabilities.

Trial court allowed re-allocation: daughters to get equal shares.
High Court reversed; Supreme Court restored the trial court’s order.
Past dispositions/partitions before 20 Dec 2004 and earlier wills remain protected.

Issues

Are the 2005 Amendment benefits available to the daughters (appellants)?
Can the court modify a preliminary decree to reflect daughters’ equal shares when the final decree is still pending?

Rules

HSA 2005, Section 6: Daughters are coparceners by birth with the same rights and liabilities as sons.
Temporal scope: Applies to partitions/final allotments made after the amendment; earlier dispositions/partitions before 20-12-2004 and prior wills are saved.

Facts (Timeline)

Parties: Siblings—sons and daughters of Chakiri Venkata Swamy.

Partition suit: First respondent sued for partition of coparcenary properties “A”, “C”, “D”; and claimed shares in “B” (mother’s property).

19 Mar 1999: Trial court passed a preliminary decree, identifying shares.

Post-decree: Petitions filed for final decree and mesne profits. Commissioner appointed for partition.

2005: HSA Amendment came into force. Daughters sought re-allocation—four equal shares in “A”, “C”, “D”.

Trial court: Allowed re-allocation—each daughter to get 1/4 in “A”, “C”, “D”.

High Court: Set aside the trial court’s order.

Supreme Court: Restored trial court order; clarified scope and exceptions under the 2005 Amendment.

Arguments

Appellants (Daughters)

As coparceners post-2005, they deserve equal shares in coparcenary property.
Since no final decree yet, court can revise the preliminary decree to reflect the new law.

Respondents (Brothers)

Opposed re-allocation; relied on existing preliminary decree.
Admitted daughters’ rights under 2005 law, but pressed that they also bear family debts/liabilities.

Judgment (Held)

Supreme Court set aside the High Court decision and restored the trial court order granting equal shares to daughters.
Daughters’ coparcenary right under the 2005 Amendment is unassailable (subject to narrow exceptions).
With rights come equal obligations on the property, just like sons.
Exceptions: (i) Dispositions/alienations, including any partitions, made before 20-12-2004; (ii) testamentary dispositions made before that date.

Ratio

HSA 2005 makes daughters coparceners by birth. Where the suit is pending at the stage of final decree, the court must re-determine shares to give effect to the Amendment, unless covered by the stated exceptions.

Why It Matters

Confirms substantive equality for daughters in Mitakshara coparcenary property.
Guides courts on modifying preliminary decrees to reflect new statutory rights.
Protects vested transactions before 20-12-2004, balancing fairness and certainty.

Key Takeaways

Equal Coparceners

Daughters = sons in rights and duties from the 2005 Amendment.

Decree Stage

If final decree is pending, shares can be re-fixed to include daughters.

Saved Acts

Pre-20-12-2004 partitions/alienations and prior wills are protected.

Equal Liability

Daughters also share liabilities attached to the property.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “Daughters = Coparceners (2005)”

Check Stage: Final decree passed yet? If no, revise shares.
Apply Law: Give daughters equal rights and obligations.
Screen Exceptions: Save acts before 20-12-2004 and earlier wills.

IRAC

Issue	Rule	Application	Conclusion
Do daughters get equal coparcenary rights and can shares be revised before final decree?	HSA 2005 gives daughters equal rights/obligations; exceptions protect acts before 20-12-2004.	Suit at final-decree stage; court re-allocated shares to include daughters equally.	Yes—equal shares to daughters; trial court restored; High Court set aside.

Glossary

Coparcener: A joint family member with a birthright in Mitakshara property and a right to demand partition.
Preliminary Decree: A decree that fixes shares but does not yet divide by metes and bounds.
Final Decree: A decree that actually allots and separates the shares by metes and bounds.
Mesne Profits: Profits received by a person in wrongful possession between suit and delivery.