Self-Acquired Property of Hindu Male Devolves Under S.8, Not S.6, of Hindu Succession Act; Daughter Entitled to Equal Share: Karnataka High Court - 2025-09-24

Karnataka HC: Daughter Entitled to Equal Share in Father's Self-Acquired Property Under Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act

Dharwad, Karnataka - The Karnataka High Court, in a significant ruling, has clarified the distinction between succession to self-acquired property and coparcenary property under Hindu law. Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar held that the self-acquired property of a Hindu male who dies intestate devolves upon his heirs as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, not Section 6, thereby entitling his daughter to an equal share along with his wife.

The Court upheld a trial court's decision granting a daughter a one-half share in her late father's properties and declared that subsequent sales of this property by her mother to third parties were not binding on the daughter's legitimate share.

---

Background of the Dispute

The case originated from a suit for partition filed in 2003 by the daughter of the late Anant Mukund Shanbhag. Mr. Shanbhag, who passed away intestate in 1980, had purchased the suit properties with his own earnings, making them his self-acquired properties. He was survived by his wife (defendant No. 1) and his only daughter (the plaintiff).

Between 1991 and 2003, the mother sold various portions of the property to several individuals (defendants No. 2 to 5), claiming to be the sole owner. The daughter filed the suit after discovering a sale notice in a newspaper in 2003, asserting her right to a half share in the family properties.

The trial court in Belgaum decreed the suit in her favor, prompting the purchasers to file Regular First Appeals before the High Court.

---

Key Arguments in Court

Appellants' (Purchasers') Contentions:

The appellants primarily argued that the case should be governed by Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, which deals with coparcenary property. They contended that since all the property sales occurred before the 2005 amendment that granted daughters coparcenary rights by birth (specifically before the cut-off date of December 20, 2004), the transactions were valid and protected. They also claimed:

- An oral partition had taken place after Mr. Shanbhag's death, allotting the entire property to the mother.

- The suit was barred by limitation as it was filed long after the first sale in 1991.

- The daughter, being married, had ceased to be a member of her father's family and had no right to claim partition.

Respondent's (Daughter's) Contentions:

The daughter's counsel countered that the appellants' reliance on Section 6 was misplaced. The core of their argument was:

- The properties were self-acquired by Mr. Shanbhag and not ancestral coparcenary property.

- Therefore, succession is governed by the general rules for intestate succession under Section 8 of the Act.

- As per Section 8, the daughter and wife, being Class I heirs, are entitled to equal shares.

- The mother only had the right to sell her own undivided half-share, and any sale beyond that was invalid.

---

High Court's Analysis and Ruling

Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar meticulously analyzed the central legal question: whether Section 6 or Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act applied.

The Court decisively concluded that the nature of the property is paramount. It observed:

"It is admitted fact of both the parties that Anant Mukhund Shanbhag acquired the suit schedule properties out of his earned money... Therefore, the suit schedule properties are not coparcenary properties. The suit schedule properties are proved to be joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendant No.1... Therefore, Section 6 of the H.S. Act, 1956 is not applicable in the present case."

The judgment clarified that Section 6 applies specifically to the devolution of interest in coparcenary property . In contrast, Section 8 provides the general rules of succession for the property of a male Hindu dying intestate. Since the properties were self-acquired, their devolution is governed by Section 8.

Under Section 8, both the daughter and the wife are listed as Class I heirs and are therefore entitled to equal shares. The court noted that after the death of Mr. Shanbhag, his daughter and wife became "tenants-in-common," each holding a defined half-share.

The court dismissed the appellants' other arguments, finding no evidence of the alleged oral partition. It also rejected the contention that the mother's written statement became binding on the daughter after her death, stating, "If a party in the suit dies after filing the written statement, then his/her written statement cannot be construed as dying declaration."

---

Final Decision and Implications

By dismissing the appeals, the High Court confirmed the trial court's judgment and decree. The daughter's right to a one-half share was reaffirmed, and the sales made by her mother were deemed not binding on that share.

This judgment serves as a crucial reminder of the fundamental principles of Hindu succession law, reinforcing that a daughter's right to inherit her father's self-acquired property is absolute and equal to that of other Class I heirs, independent of the complexities surrounding coparcenary rights under Section 6.