Does Daughter Have Coparcenary Rights In Grandfather's Self-Acquired Property Allotted To Father In Partition? Karnataka High Court Answers
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (June 16) ruled that properties inherited by daughter's father from her grandfather–which he had acquired on his own, become individual/ separate properties of her father. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 210]Such properties would not assume the character of ancestral property at the hands of the father merely because they were received through a family partition,...
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (June 16) ruled that properties inherited by daughter's father from her grandfather–which he had acquired on his own, become individual/ separate properties of her father. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 210]
Such properties would not assume the character of ancestral property at the hands of the father merely because they were received through a family partition, the court clarified.
The Division Bench comprising Justice D.K. Singh and Justice T.M. Nadef upheld the judgment of the trial court at Bengaluru, which had dismissed the Original Suit for Partition filed by the NRI daughter.
Agreeing with the trial court, the bench sitting at Bengaluru opined that self-acquired property received by a son through a gift or testamentary bequest from his Mitakshara father does not get converted into ancestral property in the son's hands.
“…"In the case of C. L. ARUNACHALA MUDALIAR VERSUS C. A. MURUGATHNA MUDALIAR AND ANOTHER [(1953)2 SCC 362], the Supreme Court held that a Mitakshara father has full powers of disposition over his self-acquired property and that property received by a son under a gift or testamentary bequest from his father does not, merely by reason of such receipt, become ancestral property in the hands of the son. The Court further held that the nature of the interest taken by the donee or legatee depends upon the intention of the donor or testator gathered from the document and surrounding circumstances….”, the court laid down in unequivocal terms.
The daughter had sought for a share in her father's property as a coparcener under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1955 claiming that the property vested upon her father by her grandfather was co-parcenary property (survivorship on the properties which are ancestral joint family properties of his/her immediate parental ancestral property). However, the court noted that:
“…Where the property is conferred upon the son for his exclusive benefit, it remains his separate/self-acquired property and his descendants do not acquire any right therein by birth… The plaintiff very specific in describing the properties as the self-acquired properties of the grandfather, cannot claim the properties as a joint family properties and she being the co-parcener or a Member of Hindu Undivided Family, which entails her to seek partition…”, the court clarified.
The appellant had filed suit for partition of four schedule properties claiming that three out of them were ancestral properties her father had inherited from her grandfather and the other property was purchased using the revenue from the yield of these ancestral hindu undivided family properties. Therefore, she claimed an equal share in those properties as a coparcener daughter.
The defendants including the father, mother and sister were the defendants in the suit who took the stance that the properties in dispute were self-acquired by the grandfather and the father himself. The grandfather, with regards to certain schedule properties, had purchased them from third parties and later partitioned them among his children including the defendant father. The ownership nature of such properties would hence be 'individual' rather than being a joint Hindu family property, the defendants had argued.
The trial court, after evidence, dismissed the suit inferring that the properties were not coparcenary but absolute properties of the Defendant father who acquired the same through partition from the grandfather in question.
The Division Bench of the High Court also delved deep into the statutory framework and its interpretation about coparcenary property while dealing with the appeal.
“...Thus if a property is joint Hindu family property, then only a coparcener shall acquire the right by birth and not otherwise. If the property is self-acquired property of a member of the family, it would not be treated as joint hindu family property and the question of interest of a family member in that property as a coparcener does not arise..”, the court underscored.
The court pointed out that PW.2 uncle, who was a witness of the appellant daughter before the trial court, had himself categorically admitted during cross-examination that the property in dispute is an absolute property of the 1st defendant father.
“…The essence of a coparcenery under the Mitakshara law is unity of ownership. There has to be a community of interest and unity of possession between all the members of the family, and upon the death of any one of them, the others may well take by survivorship that in which they had during the deceased's lifetime a common interest and a common possession as held in TIKAIT HARGOBIND PRASAD SINGH Vs. SRIMATYA PHALDANI KUMARI [AIR 1952 SC 38]…”, the court remarked.
If it's the absolute property of the father-defendant, then he would have full and uncontrolled powers of disposition over such self-acquired property, the division bench clarified.
“…If the case of the plaintiff was that the Schedule 'A', 'C' and 'D' properties were self-acquired properties of the grandfather, then the grandfather had the absolute right of disposition over these properties. Once he has given these properties, to his two sons and daughter, they became the absolute owner of these properties, which came to their share and they were not the ancestral property to have any coparcenery character."
The appellant had also argued that an adverse inference should be drawn against the defendants since they did not lead any oral or documentary evidence. The Court rejected this contention, emphasising the principle governing evidence law:
"…The party who approaches the Court must prove his case on his own legs, and not on the weakness of the other side. In the absence of discharge of the initial burden, there is no burden cast upon the other side to prove their case."
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the daughter's appeal arising from the rejection of partition suit and confirmed that the schedule properties were the self-acquired properties of the grandfather, which the defendant father had absolute ownership and control over in the form of 'individual' property post partition.
Case Title: Smt. Usha N Swamy v. Sri M. Venkataswamy& Ors.
Case No: RFA No. 1568/2018
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 210