Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Doesn't Create Jurisdictional Bar To Institution Of Partition Suit: Supreme Court
The Bench noted Section 6(5) operates as saving clause rather than threshold jurisdictional bar to block suits by independent Class I Heirs.
The Supreme Court has clarified that Section 6(5) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 does not operate as a threshold jurisdictional bar to block the institution or maintainability of a partition suit.
The Bench explained that a daughter's right to claim a share in her father's estate under Section 8 of the Act is independent of the coparcenary privileges introduced by the 2005 Amendment. Where a Hindu male dies intestate prior to the amendment, his daughters succeed to his interest directly as Class I statutory heirs, meaning their independent partition claims remain entirely unaffected by the restrictions surrounding coparcenary partitions under Section 6(5).
Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih observed, “Section 6(5) of the H.S. Act is a saving clause of narrow and strict application. It does not create a jurisdictional bar to the institution of a suit for partition… The appellants have an independent right under Section 8 of the H.S. Act, 1956 as Class I heirs of the propositus who died intestate on 06.03.1985. This right accrued in 1985 by operation of the proviso to the erstwhile Section 6 read with Section 8, is independent of the 2005 Amendment, and is unaffected by Section 6(5). The suit is maintainable, at minimum, to the extent of the appellants’ claim in the share of the propositus”.
Senior Advocate Kiran Suri appeared for the appellant and Senior Advocates Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Puneet Jain appeared for the respondents.
The Court, further rejected the contention that an earlier order does not bind a co-defendant who was not a direct signatory to the first application, noting that all heirs defending a common partition deed share an indivisible interest and litigate under the same title within the scope of Explanation VI to Section 11 CPC.
It explained that a subsequent legal precedent does not override res judicata unless the core legal foundation of the initial determination has been completely undermined by the new ruling. Because the landmark judgment in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma and Others (2020) 9 SCC 1 dealt exclusively with retroactive coparcenary rights under Section 6, it left the independent statutory devolution rights of daughters under Section 8, which formed the undisturbed basis of the final 2013 maintainability order, completely untouched.
The brief facts of the case were that after the death of the propositus, B.M. Seenappa, who died intestate on March 06, 1985, a widow, four sons, and three daughters were left in the family. The defendants claimed that an oral partition occurred in September 1985, followed by a written family settlement (Palupatti) in 1988 where the daughters allegedly received monetary compensation and signed as consenting witnesses.
However, the daughters disputed the nature and validity of these transactions. Instead, the sons and mother secretly executed a registered Partition Deed on June 16, 2000, dividing the properties exclusively among themselves and completely excluding the three daughters from any allotment. 0n July 11, 2007, the daughters instituted a suit seeking a 1/8th partition share in the suit schedule properties as co-owners.
Thereafter, the mother and three sons initially preferred an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) in 2008, resulting in a Trial Court order rejecting the plaint on statutory grounds. The Karnataka High Court reversed this in January 2013, holding that because the father died intestate, the daughters held an independent maintainable right to claim a share in the father's estate as Class I heirs under Section 8 of the Act.
This maintainability order went unchallenged and attained finality, however, 8 years after issues were framed, the legal representatives of the deceased fourth son filed a second application under Order VII Rule 11(a), (b), and (d) citing a change in law via Vineeta Sharma. While the Trial Court dismissed the application on res judicata, the Karnataka High Court reversed it in revision, prompting this apex appeal.
“Section 6(5) of the H.S. Act, as substituted by the 2005 Amendment, provides that “nothing contained in this section shall apply to a partition, which has been effected before the 20th day of December, 2004.” The words “nothing contained in this section” refer to the substituted Section 6, that is, the new coparcenary rights conferred upon daughters by Section 6(1). Section 6(5) saves pre-2004 partitions from the retroactive reach of those new coparcenary rights. It does not, and on its plain language cannot, purport to extinguish the pre-existing rights of Class I heirs under Section 8, which accrued independently of the 2005 Amendment by operation of the proviso to the erstwhile Section 6 read with Section 8. The saving clause operates within the four corners of Section 6 and it does not override or abrogate the independent devolution that occurs under Section 8 upon the intestate death of a Hindu male. To hold otherwise would be to give Section 6(5) a reach far beyond its language and purpose”, the Bench observed.
“The 2013 order of the High Court proceeded on precisely this basis. The operative reasoning of the High Court in R.F.A. No. 168 of 2009 which we have reproduced in paragraph 9 above held that even assuming the daughters are not coparceners and the partition is valid, the father having died intestate, the daughters have a share in the father’s share, and the suit can be maintained. Vineeta Sharma (supra) does not touch this reasoning rather it deals with the coparcenary rights of daughters under the substituted Section 6(1). It does not address, let alone alter, the independent right of daughters as Class I heirs under Section 8 upon the intestate death of their father. The proposition that upon the intestate death of a Hindu male, his property devolves on all Class I heirs under Section 8 including daughters is a settled proposition of law that predates the 2005 Amendment and has remained undisturbed by any subsequent decision of this Court”, the Bench noted.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's revisionary order, and restored the plaint to the file of the Trial Court for an expedited trial on merits, ordering the parties to maintain the status quo regarding the subject properties in the interim.
Cause Title: B.S. Lalitha & Ors. v. Bhuvanesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 499)
Appearances:
Appellants: Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv., S.j. Amith, Aishwarya Kumar, Dr. Vipin Gupta, AOR, Krishna Kumar, Nandani Gupta, Advocates.
Respondents: Shankar Divate, AOR, Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Sr. Adv., Dharam Singh, Suraj Kaushik, Nanda Kumar K B, Akhila Wali, Shiva Swaroop, Abhishek Kanyalur, Divya Sinha, Ashritsai Torgal, Tanya Chillar, M/S. Nuli & Nuli, AOR, Christi Jain, AOR, Puneet Jain, Sr. Adv., Om Sudhir Vidyarthi, Akriti Sharma, Aditya Jain, Siddharth Jain, Harsh Jain, Yogit Kamat, Sudhanshu Prakash, AOR, Anisha Agarwal, Arpit Yadav, Ishrafil Ansari, Advocates.