Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. Functions of Public Service Commissions. Claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to services and posts. Reservation of seats and special representation to cease after sixty years.
In the impugned judgment reported in AIR Kar. Prakashplea of restrospectivity has been upheld in favour of the respondents by which the appellants are aggrieved.
Connected matters have been entertained in this Court mainly on account of the said legal issue particularly when there are said to be differing views of High Courts which makes it necessary that the issue is decided by this Court.
It is not necessary to go into the facts of the individual case or the correctness of the findings recorded by the courts below on various other issues. It was made clear during the hearing that after deciding the legal issue, all other aspects may be decided separately in the light of the judgment of this Court.
Only for the purpose of deciding the above legal question, we refer to the brief facts in Civil Appeal No. The respondent- plaintiff, Phulavati filed suit being O.
According to the case of the plaintiff, the suit properties were acquired by her late father Yeshwanth Chandrakant Upadhye by inheritance from his adoptive mother Smt. After the death of her father on 18th February,she acquired the share in the property as claimed.
The suit was contested mainly with the plea that the plaintiff could claim share only in the self acquired property of her deceased father and not in the entire property. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff amended the plaint so as to claim share as per the Amended Act 39 of The respondent-plaintiff preferred first appeal before the High Court with the grievance that the plaintiff became coparcener under the Amendment Act 39 of and was entitled to inherit the coparcenary property equal to her brothers, apart from Sarla mudgal based on individual claims in certain items of property.
The stand of the defendants-appellants was that the plaintiff could not claim any share in self acquired property of the members of the joint family and that the claim of the plaintiff had to be dealt with only under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, as it stood prior to the amendment by Act 39 of The defendants relied upon a division bench judgment of the High Court in M.
It was only the law applicable on the date of opening of succession which was to apply. The High Court framed following question for consideration on this aspect: It was held that the amendment was applicable to pending proceedings even if it is taken to be prospective.
The High Court held that: The law in this regard is too well settled in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of G.
Geetha and others reported in 6 SCC Any development of law inevitably applies to a pending proceeding and in fact it is not even to be taken as a retrospective applicability of the law but only the law as it stands on the day being made applicable.
The suit, no doubt, might have been instituted in the year and even assuming that it was four years after the demise of Yeshwanth Chandrakant Upadhye, the position so far as the parties are concerned who are all members of the joint family, in terms of Section 6 as amended by Act No.
They are also sharer members of the coparcenary property at par with all male members. When a partition takes place, coparceners succeed to the property in equal measure. The only exception carved out to the applicability and operation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act as amended by Act No.
In the present case such being not the factual position, the exception available under sub-section 5 to Section 6 cannot be called in aid by the defendants and therefore, the liability in terms of the amended provisions operates.
It is not necessary for us to multiply the judgment by going into details or discussing other judgments referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties at the Bar as one judgment of the Supreme Court if clinches the issue on the point, it is good enough for us, as a binding authority to apply that law and dispose of the case as declared in that judgment.
The defendants-appellants have questioned the judgment and order of the High Court with the contention that the amended provision of Section 6 has no application in the present case. Father of the plaintiff died on 18th February, and was thus, not a coparcener on the date of commencement of the Amendment Act.
The plaintiff could not claim to be "the daughter of a coparcener" at the time of commencement of the Act which was the necessary condition for claiming the benefit. Such vested right could not have been taken away by a subsequent amendment in absence of express provision or necessary intendment to that effect.
Moreover, the amending provision itself was expressly applicable "on and from" the commencement of the Amendment Act, i. The High Court held that even if the provision was prospective, it could certainly apply to pending proceedings as has been held in some decisions of this Court.
It is pointed out that the amendment could apply to pending proceedings, only if the amendment was applicable at all.Part The petitioner's marital discord, and the petitioner's prayers: 1.
The petitioner-Shayara Bano, has approached this Court, for assailing the divorce pronounced by her husband - Rizwan Ahmad on , wherein he affirmed " in the presence of witnesses saying that I gave 'talak, talak, talak', hence like this I divorce from you from my wife.
Full text of the Supreme Court Judgment:Shayara Bano Vs. Union of India. Ethiopia - Itm Scandinabian Impression, Dokyniels LAN, Trio Montmart, Nils Dorkey Trio The Three Little Pigs, Moira Butterfield At School, James Nixon Tricks, Scams and Practical Jokes, Geoff Tibballs Working Indie - The . Full text of the Supreme Court Judgment:Prakash Vs.
Phulavati. The concept of the uniform civil code is to make the common civil code for every citizen throughout the territory of India by states. Uniform civil code includes civil laws related to marriage, divorce, adoption, and inheritance of property. The main aim of the uniform civil code is to make unity.
The text of the amendment itself clearly provides that the right conferred on a 'daughter of a coparcener' is 'on and from the commencement of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, '.