IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2089 of 2008 PUSHPA DEVI Versus NANHAK SINGH & ORS ----------- 2 17/12/2008 Heard Mr. J.K.Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court there can be no blank application of the mandatory provision of section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) so as to bar each and every suit filed by a married or unmarried daughter. As a matter of fact the amended provision of Section 6(5) of the Act itself clarifies this aspect of the matter, whereby and whereunder, a daughter seeking partition in her father’s property cannot be allowed to question a partition already made prior to 20th December, 2004, if such partition has been effected by executing a registered deed of partition or by a decree of the Court. From reading of plaint of the present case it is absolutely clear that the plaintiff-petitioner has no where questioned any partition of any date muchless of a date prior to 20th December, 2 2004. In that view of the matter, the impression of the court below that the suit itself was not maintainable seems to be clearly erroneous both on facts and in law. Mr. Verma, in fact is correct in also relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of ‘Ram Bilash Singh Vs. Uttam Raj Singh & Ors’, reported in 2008 (2) PLJR 585, wherein it has been held that after amendment the daughter has become a coparcener in the joint property in her own right by birth which automatically entitles her to also have a right to sue for partition against other coparcener including her father. That being so, the impugned order is apparently vitiated by an obvious jurisdictional error and accordingly the same is set aside with a direction to the court below to proceed with the suit in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this Civil Revision Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar