Malleeswari v. K. Suguna and Another
- Vaishnavi Majji
- Nov 4
- 2 min read
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malleeswari v. K. Suguna and Another (2025 INSC 1080) delivered a key decision on the interplay of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 1989 and the remedy of amending a preliminary decree in a partition suit.
The appellant, a daughter of a deceased coparcener, sought to amend a preliminary decree passed in 2003 in a partition suit filed by her brother in respect of ancestral family property. She claimed that as a living daughter of a coparcener at the time of the HSA 2005 coming into force, she was entitled to a one-third share under the HSA 2005 and the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act.
The suit property had been dealt with through a sale and settlement along the way, and the respondents opposed the amendment application on grounds of limitation, estoppel and the finality of the preliminary decree.
The Hon’ble Court held that the High Court had exceeded its review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order 47 CPC by reversing earlier findings as though on appeal. It set aside the impugned review order, restored the High Court’s earlier order of 23 September 2022, and remitted the matter to the trial court for fresh enquiry.
Notably, the Hon’ble Court emphasised that while the daughter may be entitled to a share under the HSA 2005/Tamil Nadu Amendment, her claim must still be considered through proper proceedings and cannot be raised by way of a disguised amendment of a preliminary decree. Moreover, the review jurisdiction of a court is strictly circumscribed. It cannot engage in re-appreciation of evidence as though on appeal.
In essence, the judgment reinforces two significant principles: daughters of coparceners under Hindu law may claim rights under the HSA 2005 (where applicable) and amendment of a preliminary decree requires careful adherence to procedural and substantive safeguards.
The matter is remitted for further fact-finding on quantification and rights of parties in light of the changed legal regime.
Source
Comments