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...

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

Yash Mittal

The Court clarified that Section 6(5) of the Hindu Succession Act does not bar daughters' suit seeking partition to claim intestate inheritance rights as Class 1 heirs under Section 8.

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

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

Yash Mittal

The Court clarified that Section 6(5) of the Hindu Succession Act does not bar daughters' suit seeking partition to claim intestate inheritance rights as Class 1 heirs under Section 8.

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers