Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24100
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
MR ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J
SMT VASANTHA LAKSHMI S, SMT. USHA M.R, SMT. M.R.SRILATHA, SMT. INDIRA M.R, LATE ANANTHA KRISHNA M.R, SMT SREEDEVI M R, SRI VIKRAM SIMHA M A, SRI VAISHAK SIMHA M A, SMT. M.R. VASUDHA, SMT. SUJATHA M.R, SRI. M.P. KAILASABHANU SIMHA – Appellant
Versus
SRI M R NARENDRA SIMHA, SMT. M.P. NIKHILA – Respondent
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1197 OF 2014 | RSA CROB. NO.7 OF 2015
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI B C SEETHARAMA RAO
For the Respondents: SRI M R NARENDRA SIMHA, SRI ANUP SEETHA RAMA RAO, SRI K S LAKSHMINARASAPPA
Daughters are entitled to equal shares in property acquired under a Will, regardless of prior section restrictions in the Hindu Succession Act.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Sections 6 and 23 - Right to partition in ancestral property - The court found that the property in dispute was not ancestral property but self-acquired, and hence the plaintiffs, as legal representatives, are entitled to a share in the property despite the bar under Section 23. (Paras 11, 12, 27, 33)
(B) Execution of Will - Validity of a Will - The court upheld the validity of the Will executed by Gopal Jois, which led to entitlement of inheritance by the descendants, thus necessitating a partition. (Paras 19, 26)
Facts of the case:
The case revolves around the partition of properties inherited via a Will from Gopal Jois and the claims by the descendants. The plaintiffs are the heirs of Ramachandra Jois, whose rights were challenged by the defendant.
Findings of Court:
The appeal was allowed, validating the claims of the plaintiffs regarding their share in the property and dismissing the cross-appeal of the defendant.
Issues: Key issues included entitlement to partition under the Hindu Succession Act and the applicability of Section 23 concerning partition claims by female heirs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court elucidated that since the property was not co-parcenery, the rights under the amended Section 6 of the Act apply. The daughters are entitled to equal share regardless of the previous restrictions under Section 23 as it was amended post-suit filing. (Paras 11, 28, 30)
Result: The appeal in RSA No.1197/2014 is allowed and RSA Cross Objection 07/2015 is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the nature of the appeal and its lineage. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. determining the nature of property as self-acquired. (Para 6 , 20 , 24) |
| 3. share determination among heirs. (Para 8 , 10 , 33) |
| 4. final ruling on partition. (Para 27 , 35) |
| 5. daughters' rights post-amendment. (Para 30 , 32) |
CAV JUDGMENT
This Regular Second Appeal is arising from a suit for partition which is decreed. The plaintiffs' first appeal (except plaintiffs No. 3 and 4, all the plaintiffs filed first appeal) seeking modification of share is dismissed.
2. The defendant's cross objection challenging the decree for partition is also dismissed. Hence, the plaintiffs are before this Court in RSA NO.1197/2014 and defendant has filed RSA Cross Objection No.7/2015.
3. The admitted Genealogy is as under:
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, and the party-in-person/respondent No.1, who is also the cross- objector.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs - appellants taking through the pleadings submitted as under:
(i) Krishna Jois was the propositus. He had four sons viz., Gopal Jois, Narayana Jois, Narasimha Jois and Narahari Jois. Gopal Jois died issueless. Gopal Jois under the Will dated 14.04.1940 bequeathed the property in favour of his brother Narayana Jois conferring life estate on Narayana Jois, and after the demise of Narayana Jois, testator conferred absolute estate in favour of three sons of Narayana Jois viz., Narasimha Jois, Ramachandra Jois and Krishnamurthy.
(ii) After the demise of Narayana Jois, in the year 1964 the property of Gopal Jois was inherited by the legatees viz., Narasimha Jois, Ramachandra Jois and Krishnamurthy, in terms of the Will referred to above. Thus, aforementioned legatees, acquired 1/3 share each in the suit property.
(iii) On 04.01.1971, Narasimha Jois who had 1/3 share in the property in terms of the Will referred to above released his 1/3rd share jointly in favour of his brothers Ramachandra Jois and Krishnamurthy.
(iv) On 11.05.1973, Ramachandra Jois and Krishna Murthy effected partition through deed dated 11.05.1973 and in said partition, the said property is allotted to the share of Ramachandra Jois. Thus, Ramachandra Jois became the absolute owner of the property.
6. It is relevant to notice that Narayana Jois died in 1964 and he enjoyed his life estate over the property under the Will dated 14.04.1940, till his death. Narayana Jois was not the absolute owner of the property and he had only a life estate. Thus his three sons acquired the right over the property through the Will of their uncle Gopal Jois. Ramachandra Jois who had only a life estate died in the year 2000.
7. The suit for partition and separate possession is filed by wife and children of Ramachandra Jois against one of the sons of Ramachandra Jois the sole defendant.
8. The defendant contested the suit. The defendant urged that the daughters of Ramachandra Jois are not entitled to claim share in the residential house in view of the bar contained under Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short, 'Act, 1956'). The defendant also took a contention that plaintiffs are not entitled to the share as claimed by them. The defendant urged that the property is the ancestral property and the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim equal share.
9. The Trial Court held that the property is the ancestral property and denied share to the daughters born before 1956. The Trial Court awarded 1/70th share to each of the plaintiffs No.1 and 5 to 7, and 1/70th share to plaintiffs No.2 to 4 together, and 11/70th share to each of the plaintiffs No.8 to 11. The Trial Court also awarded 11/70th share to the defendant.
10. On appeal by the plaintiffs, First Appellate Court has also confirmed the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. As already noticed, the cross appeal filed by the defendant is also dismissed.
11. This appeal was admitted on 30.03.2021 to answer the following substantial questions of law:-
i. Whether the Courts below were right in
