Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – s. 16 – Children of void and voidable marriages – Conferment of legitimacy – Inheritance rights of legitimised children:
Held: While conferring legitimacy in terms of s. 16(1) on a child born from a marriage which is void u/s. 11, and under s. 16(2) to a child born from a voidable marriage which has been annulled by a decree of nullity u/s. 12, it is stipulated in s. 16(3) that such a child will have rights to or in the property of the parents and not in the property of any other person – ss. 11, 12. [Para 54(iii)]
Hindu Succession Act 1956 – s. 3(1)(j) – ‘related by legitimate kinship’ – Construction of the provisions of s. 3(1)(j) including the proviso:
Held: Legitimacy conferred by s. 16 of the HMA 1955 on a child born from a void or, voidable marriage has to be read into the provisions of the HSA 1956 – Child who is legitimate under sub-section (1) or sub-section
(2) of s.16 of the HMA would, for the purposes of s. 3(1)(j), fall within the ambit of the explanation ‘related by legitimate kinship’ and cannot be regarded as an ‘illegitimate child’ for the purposes of the proviso – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – s. 16. [Para 54(iv)]
Hindu Succession Act 1956 – s. 6 – Devolution of interest in coparcenary property – Substitution of s. 6 by Act 39 of 2005 - Effect: Held: By the substitution of s. 6, equal rights have been granted to daughters, in the same manner as sons as indicated by sub-section (1) of s.
6 – In terms of sub-section (3) of s. 6 as amended, on a Hindu dying after the commencement of the Amending Act of 2005 his interest in the property of a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law will devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, and not by survivorship – Said rule of devolution has been made the norm – Prior to the substitution of s. 6 by the Amending Act of 2005, s. 6 stipulated the devolution of interest in a Mitakshara coparcenary property of a male Hindu by survivorship on the surviving members of the coparcenary – Exception to devolution by survivorship was where the deceased had left surviving a female relative specified in Class I of the Schedule or a male relative in Class I claiming through a female relative, in which event the interest of the deceased in a Mitakshara coparcenary property would devolve by testamentary or intestate succession. [Para 54(v), (vi)]
Hindu Succession Act 1956 – s. 6 – Devolution of interest in coparcenary property – Ascertainment of share on basis of notional partition:
Held: While providing for the devolution of the interest of a Hindu in the property of a Joint Hindu family governed by Mitakshara law, dying after the commencement of the Amending Act of 2005 by testamentary or intestate succession, s.6(3) lays down a legal fiction namely that the coparcenary property shall be deemed to have been divided as if a partition had taken place – For 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 – 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 conferred with legitimacy u/s.16 of the HMA, would 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. [Para 54(viii), (ix)] Hindu Succession Act 1956 – s. 6(3) – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – s.
16 – s. 16(3) of the HMA 1955 and s. 6(3) of the HSA 1956, if inconsistent: Held: There is no inconsistency between s. 16(3) of the HMA 1955 and s. 6(3) of the HSA 1956 – Provisions of the HSA 1956 have to be harmonized with the mandate in s. 16(3) of the HMA 1955 which indicates that a child who is conferred with legitimacy under sub-sections (1) and (2) of s. 16, will not be entitled to rights in or to the property of any person other than the parents – Property of the parent, where the parent had an interest in the property of a Joint Hindu family governed under the Mitakshara law has to be ascertained in terms of the Explanation to sub-section (3) [Para 54(x)] Judgments/orders – Two judge Bench of this Court in its referring judgment Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun held that the illegitimate children will have right in the coparcenary property of their parents, self acquired or ancestral – Reconsideration:
Held: There is a degree of contradiction in the referring judgment which needs to be clarified and set at rest – Thus, reference answered holding that the children born out of the void or voidable marriage entitled to share in the property of their deceased parents and not in the property of any other person. [Para 53]
Mitakshara Law – Joint Hindu family – Description of: Held: It comprises of male members who are lineal descendants from a common male ancestor, together with their mothers, wives or widows and unmarried daughters – Joint Hindu family has been described as ‘a larger body’ consisting of a group of persons united by sapindaship or family relationship. [Para 21]
Mitakshara Law – Hindu coparcenary – Composition of: Held: It comprises of a propositus and three lineal descendants – Hindu coparcenary is a body which is narrower than a Hindu Undivided Family – Before 2005, it included only sons, grandsons and great-grandsons who were holders of joint property – Hallmark of a coparcenary is that a lineal male descendent up to the third generation would acquire an independent right of ownership by birth and the interest of a deceased member would lapse on his death and merge in the coparcenary property. [Paras 22-25] Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – s. 6 – Devolution of interest in coparcenary property in a joint Hindu family governed by Mitakshara law – Position prior to its substitution by Act 39 of 2005 and after substitution of s.6 by Act 39 of 2005 – Coparcenary rights on daughters in Joint Hindu families governed by Mitakshara law – Explained. [Paras 26-41]
Mitakshara law – Joint Hindu families governed thereunder – Provisions of the HSA 1956 in relation to Joint Hindu families of that class – Interpretation of – Hindu Succession Act, 1956. [Para 55] LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Jinia Keotin v Kumar Sitaram Manjhi (2003) 1 SCC 730: [2002] 5 Suppl. SCR 689; Neelamma v Sarojamma (2006) 9 SCC 612; Bharatha Matha v R Vijaya Renganathan (2010) 11 SCC 483: [2010] 7 SCR 154; Revanasiddappa v Mallikarjun (2011) 11 SCC 1: [2011] 4 SCR 675; Parayankandiyal Eravath Kanapravan Kalliani Amma (Smt) v K Devi (1996) 4 SCC 76: [1996] 2 Suppl. SCR 1; Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India (2020) 13 SCC 585: [2019] 12 SCR 30; Sushil Kumar v. Ram Prakash (1988) 2 SCC 77: [1988] 2 SCR 623; Smt Sitabai v. Ramchandra (1969)
2 SCC 544: [1970] 2 SCR 1; Gowli Buddanna v. CIT, Mysore, Bangalore AIR 1966 SC 1523: [1966] SCR 224; Surjit Lal Chhabda v. Commissioner of Income Tax Bombay (1976) 3 SCC 142: [1976] 2 SCR 164; Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) 9 SCC 1: [2020] 10 SCR 135; State Bank of India v. Ghamandi Ram (1969) 2 SCC 33: [1969] 3 SCR 681; Controller of Estate Duty, Madras v. Alladi Kuppuswamy (1977) 3 SCC 385: [1977]
3 SCR 721; State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Rao Sham Rao Deshmukh (1985) 2 SCC 321: [1985] 3 SCR 358; Vellikannu v. R Singaperumal (2005) 6 SCC 622: [2005] 1 Suppl. SCR 160; Rohit Chauhan v. Surinder Singh (2013) 9 SCC 419: [2013] 7 SCR 897; Katama Natchier v. Rajah of Shivagunga 1863 SCC OnLine PC 11; Gurupad Khandappa v. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum (1978) 3 SCC 383: [1978] 3 SCR 761; Shantaram Tukaram Patil v. Dagubai Tukaram Patil 1987 SCC OnLine Bom 9: 1987 Mah LJ 179; Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande Vs State of Maharashtra (1965)
2 SCR 837 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.