Hindu Succession Act | Legal Heirs Of Daughters Who Died Before 2005 Amendment Entitled To Equal Share In Family Property: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that legal heirs of a daughter are entitled to equal share in the family properties, even if the daughters had passed away before the amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, came into force in 2005.

A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, dismissed the plea filed by Channabasappa Hosmani, questioning the order passed by the trial court wherein his application made under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code, was declined and the trial court refused to amend the preliminary decree which granted equal share to the legal heirs of the pre-deceased daughters.

The primary contention of the petitioners was that the effect of amended Section 6 of the Act was prospective and since the daughters namely Nagavva and Sangavva died before the 2005 amendment, the legal heirs of Nagavva and Sangavva were not entitled to equal share.

Further, it was argued that the Act created a new right per legal heirs of daughters and that its provisions were not expressly made retrospective by the Legislature. Thus it was submitted that the rights under the amendment Act would apply to living daughters of the living coparcener as of 9.9.2005, when the amendment came into force, irrespective of when such daughters were born.

The bench relied on the Apex court order in the case of Vineetha Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma and others, (2020) and held that because of the amendment to Section 6 of the Act, a daughter would step into the coparcenary as that of a son by taking birth before or after the commencement Act.

"As the right is by birth and not by dint of inheritance, it is irrelevant that a coparcener whose daughter is conferred with the rights is alive or not,” it held.

It added that Section 6(1) of the Act envisages the existence of a joint Hindu family when the amendment came into force and that if the joint family and the ancestral properties are intact, the right of a daughter subsists, whether she is alive or not as on the date of the 2005 amendment.

Court held that since the daughter by fiction was granted the status of coparcener by birth, her right in the ancestral property being antecedent, Class-I heirs of the pre-deceased daughter were to be treated at par with the other family members. 

“If the rights of legal heirs of a predeceased son are not affected, the conferral of coparcenary right on a daughter by birth cannot be taken away on the premise that the daughter was not alive on 9.9.2005. Any denial would lead to discrimination among the legal heirs of predeceased son and predeceased daughters and would defeat the very noble object of enactment and codifying the law relating to intestate succession,” it held.

The Court further opined that such denial of equal rights to legal heirs may not only be considered discriminatory but could also be subject to legal challenges as it went against the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

It was observed that Courts when interpreting and applying the law, must strive to uphold such fundamental principles and intervene to ensure that the rights of individuals, irrespective of gender, are protected and upheld. By refusing the benefits granted to similarly situated heirs of sons, it undermines the fundamental principle of equality before the law, it held. 

Court noted that such an interpretation of the law would align with the evolving legal landscape in India, by progressively addressing historical gender biases in property rights within Hindu families. It was observed that the denial of benefits to the legal heirs of a predeceased daughter under the 2005 amendment could otherwise be seen as perpetuating historical gender-based biases.

"The judgment essentially corrects this historical imbalance by granting daughters and their legal heirs the same rights as sons in ancestral property, regardless of when the daughter passed away. It emphasises the constitutional principle of equality, ensuring that women are not deprived of their rightful share merely due to the timing of legal amendments,” it concluded. 

Accordingly, the plea was dismissed. 

Appearance: Advocate S L Matti for Petitioner

Advocates R.B.Challamarad & J.R.Challamarad for C/R1.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 6

Case Title: Channabasappa Hosmani AND Parvatevva alias Kasturevva & Others

Case No: Writ Petition no 105363 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order