Daughter Born From Void Marriage Can Inherit Her Deceased Father's Undivided Share In Ancestral Property: Karnataka High Court

The Court was hearing a regular second appeal filed by the deceased man’s son against concurrent decrees recognising the daughter’s one-fourth share in a partition suit.

A Bench of Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar observed: “As can be seen from the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court the plaintiff no. 2, being the illegitimate daughter of late Agasara Hanumanthappa would be entitled to claim a share in his undivided share upon his demise. In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that during his lifetime Agasara Hanumanthappa was entitled to half share in the suit schedule property while the remaining half share belonged to his son the appellant herein and upon the demise of late Agasara Hanumanthappa, his undivided half (50%) share would necessarily have to be divided equally between the respondent no.2 / plaintiff no. 2 and the appellant / defendant no. 1. In accordance with this well settled legal position, both the Courts have come to the correct conclusion that in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court defendant no. 1 would be entitled to the remaining 3/4th share in the suit schedule property.”

Advocate Siddappa B.M. appeared for the appellant. Advocate K.R. Lingaraju appeared for the first and second respondents, while Advocate M.G. Kantharajappa appeared for the legal representatives of the third respondent.

Background

The partition suit was instituted by Shanthamma and her daughter Laxmi. They contended that Shanthamma was the second wife of the deceased and that Laxmi was his daughter. They sought partition of the suit properties against Hanumanthappa, the deceased’s son through his first wife, and challenged sale deeds executed by him in favour of two purchasers.

Hanumanthappa and the purchasers disputed the asserted relationship and denied that the plaintiffs had any right or share in the properties.

The Trial Court found that Shanthamma and Laxmi had established their relationship with the deceased. It held that Shanthamma could not claim a share because her marriage had taken place during the subsistence of the first marriage. It nevertheless concluded that Laxmi was entitled under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to inherit from her father.

The Trial Court found that the deceased and his son each held a half share in the suit property. It divided the deceased’s half equally between the son and the daughter, giving Laxmi one-fourth of the entire property and Hanumanthappa the remaining three-fourths.

The First Appellate Court affirmed the daughter’s share but set aside the direction for cancellation of the sale deeds. It directed that the parcels sold to the purchasers be allotted to Hanumanthappa’s three-fourths share through equitable partition.

Before the High Court, Hanumanthappa argued that a daughter born from a void marriage could not claim a share in ancestral joint-family property. The respondents relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Revansiddappa v. Mallikarjun (2023).

Court’s Observations

Daughter’s Right In Father’s Share Was No Longer Unsettled

The High Court observed that the plaintiffs had not challenged the First Appellate Court’s modification concerning the sale deeds and equitable partition. The only surviving issue was whether the daughter could inherit half of her father’s notional half share.

The Court stated: “Under these circumstances, the only question that arises for consideration in the present appeal is as to whether both the Courts were justified in declaring that the plaintiff no. 2 being illegitimate daughter of late Agasara Hanumanthappa was entitled to 1/4th share i.e. half share in the notional half share of late Agasara Hanumanthappa in the suit schedule property. The said issue is no longer res integra in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Revansiddappa's case supra.”

Section 16 Rights Are Confined To Parents’ Property

Referring to Revansiddappa v. Mallikarjun (2023), the Court noted that Section 16(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act statutorily confers legitimacy on a child born from a marriage that is null and void under Section 11.

The Court further noted that Section 16(3) restricts the child’s rights to the property of the parents and does not create rights in the property of any other person. It also referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling that the legitimacy conferred by Section 16 must be read into Section 3(1)(j) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Quoting the Supreme Court, the High Court stated: “While conferring legitimacy in terms of sub-section (1) on a child born from a void marriage and under sub-section (2) to a child born from a voidable marriage which has been annulled, the legislature has stipulated in sub-section (3) of Section 16 that such a child will have rights to or in the property of the parents and not in the property of any other person.”

The Bench added that, under Revansiddappa, a child clothed with legitimacy under Section 16 could not be treated as an illegitimate child for determining legitimate kinship under the Hindu Succession Act.

Parent’s Notional Share Must First Be Determined

The Court noted that Revansiddappa required the share of a deceased Mitakshara coparcener to be ascertained by assuming a partition immediately before the coparcener’s death. Once the deceased parent’s share was identified, the heirs, including children protected by Section 16, became entitled to succeed to that share.

The High Court quoted the Supreme Court’s conclusion: “For the purpose of ascertaining the interest of a deceased Hindu Mitakshara coparcener, the law mandates the assumption of a state of affairs immediately prior to the death of the coparcener namely, a partition of the coparcenary property between the deceased and other members of the coparcenary. Once the share of the deceased in property that would have been allotted to him if a partition had taken place immediately before his death is ascertained, his heirs including the children who have been conferred with legitimacy under Section 16 of the HMA 1955, will be entitled to their share in the property which would have been allotted to the deceased upon the notional partition, if it had taken place.”

Applying this principle, the Court observed that the deceased held a 50% share and his son held the remaining 50%. Upon the father’s death, his share devolved equally upon the son and daughter. The daughter, therefore, received one-fourth of the entire property, while the son’s aggregate entitlement became three-fourths.

Conclusion

The High Court held that the Trial Court and First Appellate Court had correctly applied the principles subsequently affirmed in Revansiddappa v. Mallikarjun (2023). Finding no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, it dismissed the son’s regular second appeal. The preliminary decree granting the daughter a one-fourth share and the son a three-fourths share consequently remained undisturbed.

Cause Title: Hanumanthappa v. Shanthamma and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:56474)

Appearances

Appellant: Advocate Siddappa B.M.

Respondents: Advocate K.R. Lingaraju; Advocate M.G. Kantharajappa

Click here to read/download Judgment