Property Allotted in Partition of Ancestral Estate Retains Coparcenary Character for Allottee's Sons: Karnataka High Court - 2025-09-16

Property from Ancestral Partition is Joint Family Property for Sons, Karnataka High Court Affirms

Dharwad: The Karnataka High Court, in a significant ruling on Hindu succession law, has reaffirmed that a share of ancestral property allotted to a coparcener during a family partition retains its character as joint family property in his hands, with his sons acquiring a right by birth. A division bench of Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar and Justice C.M. Poonacha dismissed an appeal filed by a purchaser, upholding a trial court's decision that granted two sons a 2/3rd share in property sold by their father.

The bench held that the father could only sell his individual share and the sale was not binding on the shares of his children, who are coparceners.

Case Background

The case originated from a suit filed by Amit and Vinod Padmannavar against their father, Ajit Padmannavar, and the purchaser of their family property, Sou Pushpa Marihalkar. The disputed property, measuring 1 acre and 18 guntas in Belagavi, was sold by Ajit to Marihalkar via a registered sale deed on August 24, 2006.

The plaintiffs argued that the property was ancestral. Their grandfather, Kugappa, had received a larger tract of land in a 1951 partition. After Kugappa's death, this land was further partitioned in 1999 between his widow and three sons, including their father Ajit. The suit property was the specific portion allotted to Ajit in this 1999 partition. The sons contended that as this was their ancestral property, they held a birthright in it, and their father could not alienate the entire property without their consent.

Arguments in Court

The appellant, Sou Pushpa Marihalkar (defendant No. 2), argued that she was a bona fide purchaser for value and that the seller, Ajit, was the absolute owner of the property following the 1999 partition. She maintained that the plaintiffs had no right to claim a share during their father's lifetime.

The respondents (plaintiffs) countered that under Mitakshara law, property received by a coparcener in a partition of ancestral property becomes ancestral property in his hands qua his own sons. Therefore, they automatically became coparceners, and the sale was not binding on their respective 1/3rd shares.

Court's Analysis and Precedents

The High Court meticulously traced the property's lineage, confirming its ancestral nature. The bench noted that the property originally belonged to the plaintiffs' great-grandfather, passed to their grandfather Kugappa in a 1951 partition, and was then allotted to their father Ajit in the 1999 partition.

The Court cited established legal principles, including the Supreme Court's judgments in Arshnoor Singh Vs. Harpal Kaur and Shyam Narayan Prasad v. Krishna Prasad , to underscore the distinction in property character under Hindu law.

The judgment stated:

"It is well settled in law that the share allotted at a coparcener at a partition of ancestral or joint family property partakes the nature of ancestral/joint family property in the hands of the allottee, qua his children and as regards his children, including the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2."

The Court observed that crucial admissions were made during the trial by the appellant's representative, who acknowledged that the property was ancestral and not the self-acquired property of the seller. This admission, coupled with documentary evidence like the 1999 partition deed (Ex.P1), solidified the plaintiffs' claim.

An application by the appellant to amend her written statement at the appellate stage was also dismissed. The appellant sought to argue that the seller's brother, Mahaveer, should have been a party to the suit as he was a co-signatory on the sale deed. The Court rejected this, clarifying that Mahaveer had sold his own separate, demarcated share under the same deed, and had no claim over the specific property allotted to Ajit.

Final Verdict

Finding no illegality or perversity in the trial court's decision, the High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated April 24, 2018.

The Court concluded:

"Upon re-appreciation, re-evaluation and re- consideration of the entire material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity... warranting interference by this Court in the present appeal."

The ruling reinforces a foundational principle of Hindu succession, clarifying that a partition does not convert ancestral property into self-acquired property for the subsequent generation, thereby protecting the inheritance rights of children as coparceners.