Court clarifies that coparcenary rights under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 vest only if daughter was alive on 09.09.2005; plaint in partition suit rejected for lack of cause of action.
In a landmark judgment delivered on October 29, 2026, the Karnataka High Court, presided over by Justice Lalitha Kanneganti, settled a vital legal question concerning inheritance rights under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended in 2005. The Civil Revision Petition arose from a suit for partition filed by children and grandchildren of a daughter who had died prior to the commencement of the 2005 Amendment. The Court held that such descendants cannot claim coparcenary rights through their deceased mother under the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act.
The facts of the case revealed that Muniyappa, the ancestral property owner, died in 1954. His widow passed away in 2002, and the mother of the plaintiffs died on June 24, 2005-some months before the amendment came into effect on September 9, 2005. The plaintiffs, being the children and grandchildren of this daughter, sought partition and separate possession of ancestral properties, challenging certain sale deeds executed by other family members.
The trial court initially declined to reject the plaint, stating that evidence was needed to determine limitation and entitlement. However, on appeal, the Karnataka High Court examined the binding Supreme Court precedent in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020), which had extensively analyzed the amended Section 6.
The Supreme Court had clarified that a daughter acquires coparcenary rights by birth, and these rights were recognized prospectively from September 9, 2005. Importantly, the Supreme Court rejected the requirement that a father must be alive on that date for a daughter to claim rights. Nonetheless, it specifically held that the daughter herself must be alive on September 9, 2005, to claim coparcenary rights under the amendment. This means the amendment does not vest rights retroactively in daughters who had died before the amendment took effect.
The Karnataka High Court emphasized that while the daughter's coparcenary right is by birth, the statutory enforcement of this right operates from the date of the amendment. Hence, where the daughter died before the amendment, no coparcenary right under the substituted Section 6 vested in her. Consequently, her legal heirs cannot claim rights through her that she never possessed.
The Court critically analyzed the conflicting precedent from a co-ordinate bench in Channabasappa v. Parvatevva, which had allowed inheritance claims by descendants of pre-deceased daughters. It found that view inconsistent with the Supreme Court's express observations in Vineeta Sharma, and under Article 141 of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court's declaration of law is binding.
The Court held that since the plaint clearly disclosed that the plaintiffs' claim was through their deceased mother who died before 09.09.2005, the plaint did not disclose a cause of action and was liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.
This judgment has significant implications for Hindu succession law, affirming that the benefits of the 2005 amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act are available only to daughters alive on the date of commencement. It clarifies that children and grandchildren of daughters who died earlier cannot claim coparcenary rights through the amendment.
Legal experts view this ruling as a crucial reaffirmation of the Supreme Court's stance, ensuring consistent application of inheritance laws and preventing claims based on rights that never vested. The decision also highlights the judiciary's commitment to upholding the constitutional principle of equality while respecting legislative intent.
Bottom Line:
Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 6 as amended in 2005 - Children and grandchildren of a daughter who died before 09.09.2005 cannot claim coparcenary rights through her under amended Section 6 - For accrual of right under amendment, daughter should be alive on 09.09.2005 - Plaint in partition suit liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC where plaint itself shows plaintiffs claim through mother who died prior to commencement of amendment.
Statutory provision(s):
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Section 6 (as amended in 2005), Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order 7 Rule 11
Leela Scottish Lace Limited and Anr. v. Smt. Vinoda, (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3014582
