Hindu Succession Act | 2005 Amendment Does Not Limit Daughters' Pre-Existing Inheritance Rights : Supreme Court

In an important ruling on the Hindu Succession Act, the Supreme Court on Friday (May 15) held that the 2005 amendment granting daughters coparcenary rights by birth does not take away or limit their independent right to inherit their deceased father's property as Class I heirs when he dies intestate. The Court clarified that a partition carried out among the sons alone cannot defeat the daughters' succession rights in the father's share of the property.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih dealt with a suit filed by the appellants-daughters seeking partition of their late father's five properties. The Karnataka High Court had dismissed the suit at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11(d), CPC, after accepting the respondents' plea that the suit was barred by Section 6(5) of the Hindu Succession Act. The respondents argued that a partition deed executed in 2000 among the sons was protected by Section 6(5), which saves partitions effected before December 20, 2004, from the operation of the 2005 amendment to the Act.

Setting aside the High Court's ruling, the Court noted that the 2005 amendment does not take away or extinguish the rights accrued to a daughter in an intestate property, which usually devolves upon her as a Class I heir under Section 8 of the Act. Denying the daughter her legal right in an intestate property by virtue of a partition deed was not an objective of the 2005 amendment, as the amendment doesn't extinguish or cancel the pre-existing rights of the daughter in her father's property, which ought to have been devolved upon her after the father's death intestate.

“Section 6(5) of the H.S. Act, as substituted by the 2005 Amendment, provides that “nothing contained in this section shall apply to a partition, which has been effected before the 20th day of December, 2004.” The words “nothing contained in this section” refer to the substituted Section 6, that is, the new coparcenary rights conferred upon daughters by Section 6(1). Section 6(5) saves pre-2004 partitions from the retroactive reach of those new coparcenary rights. It does not, and on its plain language cannot, purport to extinguish the pre-existing rights of Class I heirs under Section 8, which accrued independently of the 2005 Amendment by operation of the proviso to the erstwhile Section 6 read with Section 8. The saving clause operates within the four corners of Section 6 and it does not override or abrogate the independent devolution that occurs under Section 8 upon the intestate death of a Hindu male. To hold otherwise would be to give Section 6(5) a reach far beyond its language and purpose.”, the court observed.

Background

The dispute arose from the estate of one B.M. Seenappa, who died intestate on March 6, 1985, leaving behind his widow, three daughters, and four sons. After his death, the sons allegedly carried out an oral partition in 1985 and later executed a registered partition deed in 2000 among themselves and their mother. The daughters were neither allotted any share nor made parties to the partition deed.

In 2007, the daughters filed a suit seeking partition and claiming a 1/8th share each in the family properties. They argued that since their father had died intestate, they were entitled to equal shares as Class I heirs under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act.

The defendants repeatedly sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, contending that the suit was barred because the 2000 partition was protected under Section 6(5) of the Hindu Succession Act, which saves partitions effected before December 20, 2004.

An earlier application seeking rejection of the plaint had already been dismissed by the High Court in 2013, leading to the continuation of the Appellants' partition suit. However, in 2021, another application under Order VII Rule 11 was filed by the legal representatives of one of the sons, leading the High Court in 2024 reject the plaint, prompting the daughters to file an SLP before the Supreme Court.

Decision

Allowing the appeal, the judgment authored by Justice Masih observed that the High Court erred in dismissing the suit at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, without assessing whether there existed disputed questions of fact, which can only be ascertained or decided at the stage of trial. Further, the Court questioned the High Court's approach in allowing the second application seeking a rejection of the plaint, despite the earlier one being dismissed. The Court said that the High Court erred in dismissing the suit, as the second application seeking rejection of the plaint was barred by the principle of 'res judicata'.

The Court rejected the Respondent-defendants' contention that the principle of res judicata was not applicable, since the parties in both the applications were different, though they seeking the same relief, under the same title. Instead, relying on Singhai Lal Chand Jain v. Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh, Panna and Others, (1996) 3 SCC 149, the Court said that when the interests in indivisible and the parties litigate under the same title, the subsequent application, even though filed by a different party, litigating under the same title to protect the common interest, would be barred by res judicata.

Section 6(5) Is a Saving Clause, Not a Jurisdictional Bar

A major issue before the Court was whether Section 6(5) of the Hindu Succession Act completely barred the daughters' suit because the partition deed had been executed before December 20, 2004.

Rejecting this contention, the Supreme Court clarified that Section 6(5) merely protects certain past partitions from being invalidated by the 2005 amendment granting daughters coparcenary rights. It does not prevent courts from entertaining partition suits altogether. Reference was also made to Prasanta Kumar Sahoo and Others v. Charulata Sahu and Others(2023), which held a preliminary decree for partition will not amount to a partition protected by S.6(5).

The Court explained that a “saving clause” is different from a statutory bar. While a jurisdictional bar prevents a court from hearing a case at all, a saving clause only provides a defence that must be proved during trial.

“The distinction between a 'bar' and a 'saving clause' is legally significant. While a bar prevents the Court from entertaining the suit at all, a saving clause on the other hand provides a defence on merits that must be proved by the party asserting it,” the bench observed.

The Court said the High Court erred in equating the existence of a registered partition deed with a conclusive determination that the partition was valid and binding.

“To treat Section 6(5) as foreclosing this inquiry at the threshold is to conflate the existence of a registered deed with the conclusion that the partition is valid and binding on all persons,” the judgment noted.

The bench stressed that disputed issues regarding the validity of the alleged partition, including whether it could bind daughters who were not parties to it, required trial.

Importantly, the Court also held that the daughters' claim was independently maintainable under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, since their father had died intestate in 1985.

Under the unamended Hindu Succession Act, when a Hindu male dies leaving behind female Class I heirs, such as daughters, his share devolves through intestate succession under Section 8 rather than survivorship.

The Court said that the 2005 amendment doesn't restrict or cancel the daughters' right to the father's intestate property, as such a right is claimed by way of succession and is therefore independent of the coparcenary rights granted to them by birth under the 2005 amendment.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, thereby setting aside the Karnataka High Court's 2024 order and restoring the trial court's decision dismissing the defendants' application to reject the plaint.

The Court directed that the partition suit be restored to the file and proceed expeditiously. It also ordered that the status quo regarding the property be maintained until further orders of the trial court.

Cause Title: B.S. LALITHA AND OTHERS VERSUS BHUVANESH AND OTHERS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 506

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.J. Amith, Adv. Mr. S.Jayadevanna, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Kumar, Adv. Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta, AOR Mr. Krishna Kumar, Adv. Ms. Nandani Gupta, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. S N Bhat, Sr. Adv. Mr. V V Gunjal, Adv. Mr. Shankar Divate, AOR Mr. Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Sr. Adv. M/S. Nuli & Nuli, AOR Ms. Akhila Wali, Adv. Mr. Nanda Kumar K B, Adv. Mr. Shiva Swaroop, Adv. Ms. Christi Jain, AOR Mr. Puneet Jain, Sr. Adv. Mr. Om Sudhir Vidyarthi, Adv. Ms. Akriti Sharma, Adv. Mr. Aditya Jain, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Jain, Adv. Mr. Harsh Jain, Adv. Mr. Ritvik Bharadwaj, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Prakash, AOR Ms. Anisha Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Ishrafil Ansari, Adv.