PRAKASH & Ors. v. PHULAVATI & Ors.

. In this to discover the intention of legislature. background, the proviso to Section 6(1) and sub-section (5) of Section 6 clearly intend to exclude the transactions referred to therein which may have taken place prior to 20 1 h December, 2004 on which date the Bill ·was introduced. Explanation cannot permit reopening of partitions which were valid when effected. Object of giving finality to transactions prior to 20th December, 2004 is not to make the main provision retrospective in any manner. The object is that by fake transactions available C property at the introduction of the Bill is not taken away and remains available as and when right conferred by the statute becomes available and is to be enforced. Main provision of the Amendment in Section 6(1) and (3) is not in any manner intended to be affected but strengthened in this way. Settled principles governing such transactions relied upon by the appellants are not intended to be done away with for period prior to 201 h December, 2004. In no case statutory notional partition h December, 2004 could be covered by the Explanation or the proviso in question. Accordingly, the rights under the amendment are applicable to living h September, daughters of living coparceners as on 91 2005 irrespective of when such daughters are born. F Disposition or alienation including partitions which may h December, 2004 as per law have taken place before 201 applicable prior to the said date will remain· unaffected. Any transaction of partition effected thereafter will be governed by the Explanation. [Paras 19, 21 to 23] [596- E even after 201 0 G G-H; 597-A, C-G; 598-A-D]