The Karnataka High Court has reaffirmed that a daughter’s coparcenary rights in ancestral property under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, are inviolable even if the father executed a will bequeathing such property before the amendment. This judgment clarifies that statutory coparcenary rights cannot be extinguished by testamentary disposition, reinforcing gender equality in Hindu succession law.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Saroja, daughter of the late Boregowda, filed a suit for partition and separate possession of her share in ancestral properties located in Mandya District. The respondents, including Boregowda’s widow and son, contested her claim, asserting that Boregowda had validly bequeathed items 1 to 5 of the suit schedule properties to his grandson (defendant No.2) via a registered will dated 05.11.1997.
Key Facts
- Boregowda died on 13.05.1998 at approximately 95 years of age, having been paralyzed and immobile for 6 - 7 years prior to death
- The suit schedule properties consist of 10 items, with items 1 to 5 being ancestral joint family properties
- The appellant, Saroja, was born to Boregowda and was married on 18.04.1991
- The will (Ex.D1) dated 05.11.1997 bequeathed items 1 to 5 to defendant No.2, the minor son of defendant No.1
- The will was attested by two witnesses, D.W.2 and D.W.3
- No partition of the ancestral properties occurred during Boregowda’s lifetime
- The appellant claimed a 4/6th share: half as a coparcener and one-third of her father’s share
Procedural History
- 1998: Original suit (O.S.No.178/1998) filed in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Mandya
- 05.11.1997: Will executed by Boregowda
- 13.05.1998: Death of Boregowda
- 26.10.2006: Trial Court passed judgment, granting appellant 1/3rd share only in items 6 to 9 and 1/3rd of Boregowda’s share in item 10, but denying her claim over items 1 to 5 on grounds of the will
- 16.03.2026: Regular First Appeal (RFA No.450/2007) decided by Karnataka High Court
The Parties' Positions
Appellant (Saroja): Argued that as a daughter of Boregowda, she became a coparcener by birth under the 2005 amendment, regardless of her father’s will. She contended that the ancestral properties remained undivided and that the will could not override her statutory birthright.
Respondents (Legal Representatives of Boregowda): Contended that the will was validly executed and registered, and that the appellant was not a coparcener because her marriage preceded the 2005 amendment. They argued that Boregowda had full ownership and could dispose of the properties by will.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought:
- Declaration of her coparcenary rights in items 1 to 5 of the suit schedule properties
- 1/3rd share in items 1 to 5 as a coparcener
- 1/3rd share in Boregowda’s share of item 10 (as already granted by Trial Court)
- Setting aside of the Trial Court’s finding that the will defeated her coparcenary rights
The Legal Issue
The central questions were: (1) Whether the appellant, as a daughter, acquired coparcenary rights in the ancestral property despite her father’s will executed before the 2005 amendment; and (2) Whether a testamentary disposition can extinguish a daughter’s statutory coparcenary rights under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Counsel relied on Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) 9 SCC 1 to argue that a daughter becomes a coparcener by birth, irrespective of whether her father was alive on 09.09.2005, the date of the amendment. She emphasized that the properties remained undivided joint family property at the time of Boregowda’s death, and that the will could not override the statutory rights conferred by the 2005 amendment. The appellant further argued that the will, even if valid, could only operate on the testator’s individual share, not on the coparcenary interest of others.
For the Respondent
Counsel contended that the will was duly registered and attested, and that the appellant’s marriage in 1991 meant she was not a coparcener under the pre-amendment law. They argued that Boregowda, as the sole surviving male member, had absolute ownership and could dispose of the properties by will. They further claimed that the Trial Court’s factual finding on the will’s validity should not be disturbed.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by affirming that the suit schedule properties, particularly items 1 to 5, were undisputedly ancestral joint family properties. There was no evidence of any partition during Boregowda’s lifetime, and the legal presumption under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended, is that such properties remain joint unless proven otherwise.
"The Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma has authoritatively held that a daughter becomes a coparcener by birth in the same manner as a son and has equal rights and liabilities in the coparcenary property. The right does not depend upon whether the father was alive on the date of the amendment."
The Court emphasized that the 2005 amendment conferred an automatic, retrospective, and inalienable right upon daughters to be coparceners. The only exception recognized is a partition effected by a registered deed or court decree before 20.12.2004 - a condition not satisfied here.
The Court further held that even if the will (Ex.D1) was validly executed, it could not operate to defeat the coparcenary rights of the appellant. Boregowda, at the time of executing the will, did not hold exclusive ownership over items 1 to 5; he held only his share as a coparcener, and the rest belonged to other coparceners - including the appellant - by birth.
"Consequently, Boregowda could not have legally bequeathed the entire item Nos.1 to 5 of the suit schedule properties in favour of defendant No.2. In view of this legal position, even assuming for the sake of argument that the Will dated 05.11.1997 was duly executed, the same cannot be operated so as to defeat or extinguish the statutory and coparcenary rights of the plaintiff."
The Court rejected the respondents’ argument that the appellant’s pre-amendment marriage negated her rights, noting that Vineeta Sharma explicitly overruled prior judgments that conditioned coparcenary rights on the father’s survival at the time of amendment.
The Verdict
The appeal was allowed. The Karnataka High Court set aside the Trial Court’s finding that the will defeated the appellant’s claim over items 1 to 5. The appellant is entitled to a 1/3rd share in items 1 to 5 of the suit schedule properties as a coparcener. The Trial Court’s decree granting her 1/3rd share in item 10 and in items 6 to 9 remains undisturbed. The judgment and decree dated 26.10.2006 is modified accordingly.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Coparcenary Rights Cannot Be Waived by Will
- Practitioners must now treat any will executed by a Hindu male over ancestral property as valid only to the extent of his individual share, not the entire joint property
- A daughter’s coparcenary interest is not subject to testamentary disposition - even if the will is registered and attested
- In partition suits, the first inquiry must be whether the property is ancestral and undivided; if so, coparcenary rights prevail over wills
Pre-2005 Marriage Irrelevant to Coparcenary Status
- The date of a daughter’s marriage has no bearing on her right to coparcenary property under the 2005 amendment
- Courts must disregard arguments based on pre-amendment law that sought to deny daughters rights on grounds of marriage timing
- Vineeta Sharma applies retroactively to all cases where the joint family property remained undivided as of 09.09.2005
Burden of Proof Shifts to Those Challenging Coparcenary Rights
- The burden now lies on the party claiming a will overrides coparcenary rights to prove either: (a) a prior partition before 20.12.2004, or (b) that the property was not ancestral
- Mere production of a will is insufficient to extinguish a daughter’s birthright
- Courts must conduct a two-step analysis: (1) Is the property ancestral? (2) Was it partitioned before 20.12.2004?
