Married Daughter Has Right To Claim Share In Joint Property Granted To Predecessors Under Karnataka Land Reforms Act: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court was considering a Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC, seeking setting aside of the judgment passed by the courts below.
Justice B. Muralidhara Pai, Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has held that a married daughter can claim her share in the property of her father granted under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act once it is proved that the property continues to be joint.
The High Court was considering a Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC, seeking setting aside of the judgment passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, as well as the Sr. Civil Judge & JMFC.
The Single Bench of Justice B. Muralidhara Pai held, “The similar view has been taken by this Court in the Case of Vishnu and Others Vs Smt. Buddavva and others reported in RSA No.100608/2019. The defendants have not placed any material on record to take a different view on the legal position regarding the rights of the daughters to claim their share in the tenanted lands and their right to inheritance in the properties of their father.”
“Now it is well settled legal position that the daughter has a right to claim share in property, once it is proved that the property continues to be joint. For foregoing reasons, the substantial question of law framed on 31.01.2024 is answered in the affirmative”, it added.
Advocate Aravind D. Kulkarni represented the Appellant while Advocate K.H. Bagi represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The plaintiffs Neelavva and others maintained the suit for the relief of partition and separate possession claiming their 1/5th share in schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties. According to them, the suit properties originally belonged to the propositus Shivappa, who died leaving behind his wife (first Plaintiff), the daughters (Plaintiffs 2 to 5), and two sons namely Basavaraj and Mahadevappa (third Defendant). Basavaraj died leaving behind his wife (first Defendant) and a daughter (second Defendant). The plaintiffs contended that after the death of Shivappa, the parties to the suit were in joint possession and there was no partition in the family.
The defendants contested the suit by filing their written statement. They admitted the relationship between the parties to the suit. However, they denied the claim of the plaintiffs regarding the nature of the property and contended that the suit properties were neither ancestral nor joint. They stated that there was a partition between Shivappa and his brother, Rudrappa, wherein the suit lands fell to the share of Shivappa and those lands were tenanted lands. The defendants further contended that the plaintiffs voluntarily relinquished their rights in the suit properties in the presence of the elders and thereby lost their right to claim share in the suit properties. They thus prayed for dismissal of the suit.
The Trial Court partly decreed the suit holding that the plaintiffs were entitled to 1/7th share each in the suit properties. The defendants challenged the judgment and decree of the trial court by preferring the appeal. The first appellate court, after re-appreciating the evidence on record, concurred with the findings recorded by the Trial Court & confirmed the judgment passed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the Defendants preferred the regular second appeal.
Issue
The issue framed while admitting the appeal was whether the plaintiffs, being the married daughters, were entitled to any share in the suit schedule property which was granted to the predecessors of the defendants under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, more particularly in view of Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Har Naraini Devi and Anr. Vs Union of India and others (2022).
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench held that the parties to the proceedings were not in dispute regarding their relationship. The plaintiffs as well as the defendants claimed their right in the suit properties by way of inheritance through Shivappa. The defendants disputed the right of the plaintiffs to claim a share in the suit properties on the ground that the suit properties were tenanted lands, and as such, they had no right to claim a share in those properties.
The Bench referred to the judgment in Smt. Mallawwa Laxman Yadahalli since deceased by LRs Vs Shri Siddappa Mallappa Khavatakoppa, (2025) wherein the co-ordinate bench held that the married daughter is also entitled to share in the lands which were granted by the land tribunal.
Considering that the defendants had not placed any material to take a different view on the legal position regarding the rights of the daughters to claim their share in the tenanted lands and their right to inheritance, the Bench dismissed the regular second appeal.
Cause Title: Smt. Jayavva v. Smt. Girijavva (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC-D:15990)
Appearance
Appellant: Advocate Aravind D. Kulkarni
Respondent: Advocates K.H. Bagi, Advocate Abhishek Barigidad