The Karnataka High Court has clarified a critical principle in Hindu succession law: daughters are entitled to an equal share in the self-acquired property of a male Hindu dying intestate, irrespective of whether they were married before or after the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act. This judgment resolves longstanding confusion regarding the applicability of notional partition and the nature of ancestral versus self-acquired property.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The plaintiffs, five daughters of the late H.S. Ramoji Rao, filed a suit for partition and separate possession of immovable properties in Davanagere district. They claimed entitlement to a 50% share in two items of property, alleging that the properties were jointly held by the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and that the defendants - five sons of the deceased - had wrongfully excluded them from possession and profits.
Key Facts
- H.S. Ramoji Rao, the common ancestor, died intestate on 15.06.1992.
- He was survived by his wife (Plaintiff No.1) and six children: five daughters (Plaintiffs Nos.2 - 5 and one deceased daughter) and five sons (Defendants Nos.1 - 5).
- Ramoji Rao acquired the suit properties - Item No.1 and Item No.2 - through sale deeds dated 20.09.1971, using income generated from land inherited from his parents.
- His parents, Hanumanthappa and Tulasamma, purchased two plots in Hosalli Village on 09.01.1959 and 14.03.1959 in the name of Tulasamma. They died intestate after 1956.
- Ramoji Rao inherited these properties under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, making them his separate property.
- The suit properties were purchased by Ramoji Rao using income from these inherited lands.
- The plaintiffs’ marriages occurred prior to 1990.
- Defendant No.3 claimed that Item No.2 was acquired by him and his brothers through a decree in O.S. No. 209/1985 (decree dated 22.10.1994), but this was not substantiated with evidence.
- Defendant Nos.1 - 5 alleged a registered partition deed dated 28.04.1969, but failed to produce it or any corroborative evidence.
- Plaintiffs Nos.2 - 5 had executed relinquishment deeds in respect of other properties on 28.06.2004, but not for the suit properties.
- The flour mill on the suit property was constructed in 1980 using bank loans and gold ornaments of Plaintiff No.1, and operated as a family partnership.
Procedural History
- 20.09.1971: Ramoji Rao purchased Item No.1 and Item No.2 via sale deeds.
- 1980: Flour mill constructed on suit property.
- 1992: Death of H.S. Ramoji Rao; succession opened.
- 2004: Relinquishment deeds executed by four sisters in favor of Plaintiff No.1 and Defendants Nos.1 - 5.
- 03.11.2016: Defendant No.2 sent notice claiming 1/5th share in flour mill, prompting plaintiffs to assert their rights.
- 2017: O.S. No. 31/2017 filed before III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere.
- 01.09.2017: Trial Court framed issues.
- 23.04.2018: Additional issues framed.
- 02.11.2018: Trial Court passed judgment granting 11/70th share to Plaintiff No.1 and Defendants Nos.1 - 5, and 1/70th share to Plaintiffs Nos.2 - 5 in Item No.1 and Item No.2; dismissed claim for mesne profits.
- 2019: Regular First Appeal No. 201 of 2019 filed before Karnataka High Court.
- 06.03.2026: Appeal reserved.
- 29.04.2026: Judgment pronounced.
The Parties' Positions
Appellants (Plaintiffs): Argued that Ramoji Rao’s properties were self-acquired, and upon his death, all Class-I heirs - including daughters - were entitled to equal shares under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, irrespective of marriage date.
Respondents (Defendants): Contended that the properties were ancestral, that a 1969 partition was valid, that daughters were excluded from HUF after marriage, and that the 1992 succession opened a notional partition excluding daughters from equal rights under pre-2005 law.
Relief Sought
Appellants sought: (1) equal 1/10th share in Item No.1 and Item No.2 for all plaintiffs and defendants; (2) declaration of entitlement to mesne profits; (3) setting aside of the Trial Court’s denial of mesne profits.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether daughters are entitled to an equal share under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, in the self-acquired property of a male Hindu dying intestate, even if they were married before the 2005 amendment, and whether the doctrine of notional partition applies to such property.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Sri Vigneshwar S. Shastri, Senior Counsel, argued that Ramoji Rao’s properties were not ancestral but self-acquired. He inherited the ancestral land from his parents under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which converted it into his separate property. Any property purchased with income from such property became his self-acquired asset. Upon his death in 1992, Section 8 applied, making all Class-I heirs - including the five daughters - entitled to equal shares. The Trial Court erred in applying Prakash v. Pulavathi, which dealt with coparcenary property under Section 6, not self-acquired property under Section 8. The 2005 amendment was irrelevant here, as the right vested at the time of death under Section 8.
For the Respondent/State
Sri Manjunath G. Khandekar contended that the properties were ancestral because Ramoji Rao inherited them from his parents. He argued that under the law prevailing in 1992, daughters were not coparceners and thus not entitled to equal shares. He relied on the doctrine of notional partition, asserting that upon Ramoji Rao’s death, the sons inherited the property as coparceners, and daughters were excluded. He also claimed the 1969 partition deed was valid and that the plaintiffs were estopped from claiming rights due to their long absence from possession.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous analysis of the nature of the property and the applicable provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. It rejected the respondents’ claim that the suit properties were ancestral. The Court noted that Ramoji Rao’s parents purchased land in 1959 and died intestate after 1956. Under Section 15, the property devolved upon Ramoji Rao as a Class-I heir, converting it into his separate property. Any subsequent acquisition using income from this property became his self-acquired asset.
"The properties purchased by Ramoji Rao out of the nucleus earned from inherited land are his self-acquired properties, and upon his death, succession opens under Section 8, not Section 6."
The Court held that Prakash v. Pulavathi (2016) 2 SCC 36 was inapplicable, as it concerned the rights of daughters in coparcenary property under Section 6, which was amended in 2005. Here, the property was not ancestral, and the issue was not about coparcenary rights but about intestate succession under Section 8.
The Court further rejected the claim of a 1969 partition, noting that the respondents failed to produce the registered deed or any corroborative evidence. The Trial Court had rightly dismissed this defense.
Regarding mesne profits, the Court held that mere admission of joint possession does not negate the right to profits. The defendants claimed exclusive control and denied accounting. In the absence of any evidence that profits were shared, the plaintiffs were entitled to claim mesne profits in final decree proceedings.
The Verdict
The Regular First Appeal is allowed. The Judgment and Decree dated 02.11.2018 is modified to declare that Plaintiffs and Defendants Nos.1 to 5 are each entitled to a 1/10th share in Item No.1 and Item No.2 of the suit schedule property. The Trial Court’s finding that plaintiffs are not entitled to mesne profits is set aside. The plaintiffs may work out their share of mesne profits in the Final Decree Proceedings. No order as to costs is made.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Equal Shares Apply Regardless of Marriage Date
- Practitioners must now argue that Section 8 grants equal shares to all Class-I heirs, including daughters married before 2005, in self-acquired property of an intestate male.
- The 2005 amendment to Section 6 is irrelevant in cases involving self-acquired property.
- Any claim that daughters are excluded due to pre-2005 marriage is legally untenable.
Self-Acquired vs. Ancestral Property Must Be Proven
- Burden lies on the party claiming ancestral status to prove continuous lineage and undivided status since the original ancestor.
- Inheritance from parents under Section 15 converts property into separate property; subsequent purchases from such income are self-acquired.
- Courts must scrutinize the source of funds used to acquire disputed property.
Mesne Profits Cannot Be Denied on Joint Possession Alone
- Joint possession does not imply joint enjoyment of income.
- Plaintiffs may claim mesne profits if defendants are in exclusive control and refuse to account.
- Such claims must be pursued in final decree proceedings, not dismissed at the partition stage.
Documentation Is Critical
- Alleged partition deeds must be produced and proven; mere pleading is insufficient.
- Relinquishment deeds for other properties do not bar claims on un-relinquished properties.
- Courts will not presume ancestral status without clear evidence of undivided status across generations.
The Burden Shifts to the Defendant
- Once the plaintiff establishes the property was self-acquired by the deceased, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove ancestral character.
- Failure to produce documents or evidence to support ancestral claim results in automatic application of Section 8.
No Automatic Exclusion of Married Daughters
- Marriage does not sever a daughter’s right to inherit from her father under Section 8.
- The concept of "out of HUF" after marriage applies only to coparcenary property under Section 6, not to intestate succession.
Practical Takeaway for Litigants
- In partition suits involving property acquired post-1956, always determine whether the property is ancestral or self-acquired.
- If self-acquired, claim equal shares under Section 8 for all Class-I heirs.
- Do not rely on outdated notions of gender-based exclusion; the law now mandates equality.
Key Citation to Remember
"Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, governs intestate succession of a male Hindu’s self-acquired property. All Class-I heirs, including daughters, inherit equally, irrespective of the date of marriage or the 2005 amendment."
