Case Note & Summary
The case involves two regular first appeals (RFA No.100007/2014 and RFA No.100028/2014) arising from a common judgment and decree dated 25.10.2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Haveri in O.S. No.126/2006, which decreed a suit for partition. The appellant in RFA No.100007/2014 is Smt. Annapurnavva, and the appellant in RFA No.100028/2014 is Channabasaayya. The respondents include Parvatevva, Chanabasaayya (in the first appeal), and Halamma. The dispute concerns ancestral property of one Parameshwarayya Karasthal. The plaintiff (Annapurnavva) claimed that she was the daughter of Parameshwarayya and sought partition. The defendant Channabasaayya contended that he had separated from his father prior to 1956 and thus was not entitled to a share. The trial court decreed the suit, granting shares to all parties. The appeals challenge this decree. The legal issue is whether a divided son (who separated before 1956) can claim a share in the father's property. The High Court analyzed the Mitakshara law and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It held that under Section 6 of the Act, the property of a deceased coparcener devolves by testamentary or intestate succession, not survivorship, and a separated son is a class I heir under Section 8. Therefore, the divided son is entitled to a share. The court allowed the appeals, modifying the trial court's decree to include the divided son's share.
Headnote
A) Hindu Law - Partition - Divided Son's Share - Mitakshara Coparcenary - Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 6 - The core issue was whether a son who had separated from his father before 1956 could claim a share in the ancestral property after the father's death. The court held that under Mitakshara law, a separated coparcener retains the right to inherit from the father as a class I heir under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the property devolves by succession, not survivorship. The court allowed the appeal, granting the divided son a share in the father's property. (Paras 1-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a son who had separated from his father prior to the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is entitled to claim a share in the ancestral property left by his father?
Final Decision
The appeals are allowed. The judgment and decree dated 25.10.2013 passed in O.S. No.126/2006 by the Senior Civil Judge, Haveri is modified. The divided son (Channabasaayya) is entitled to a share in the ancestral property. The trial court is directed to pass a fresh preliminary decree accordingly.
Law Points
- Hindu Succession Act
- 1956
- Section 6
- Mitakshara coparcenary
- partition
- divided son
- ancestral property
- share of separated coparcener
Case Details
2021 LawText (KAR) (07) 29
R.F.A.No.100007/2014 c/w R.F.A.No.100028/2014 (PAR.)
R. Devdas, J., J.M. Khazi, J.
Sri N.P. Vivek Mehta (for appellant in RFA 100007/2014 and respondent 1 in RFA 100028/2014), Sri M.B. Patil (for respondent 1 in RFA 100007/2014 and respondent 2 in RFA 100028/2014), Sri M.M. Hiremath (for respondent 2 in RFA 100007/2014 and appellant in RFA 100028/2014), Sri Nagappa Tukkoi (for appellant in RFA 100028/2014)
Smt. Annapurnavva (in RFA 100007/2014) and Channabasaayya (in RFA 100028/2014)
Parvatevva, Chanabasaayya (in RFA 100007/2014) and Smt. Annapurnavva, Parvatevva, Halamma (in RFA 100028/2014)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeals against a decree for partition of ancestral property.
Remedy Sought
The appellants sought to set aside the trial court's decree and to have their shares determined, with the divided son claiming entitlement to a share.
Filing Reason
The trial court decreed the suit for partition, and the appellants challenged the decree on the ground that the divided son was not given a share.
Previous Decisions
The Senior Civil Judge, Haveri decreed the suit in O.S. No.126/2006 on 25.10.2013, granting shares to the parties but excluding the divided son.
Issues
Whether a son who had separated from his father prior to 1956 is entitled to a share in the father's ancestral property?
Whether the trial court erred in not granting a share to the divided son?
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant (divided son) argued that he had separated from his father before 1956 and thus was entitled to a share as a class I heir under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
The respondents argued that the divided son was not entitled to a share because he had already separated and the property devolved by survivorship.
Ratio Decidendi
Under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the property of a deceased coparcener devolves by testamentary or intestate succession, not by survivorship. A son who had separated from his father prior to the Act is a class I heir under Section 8 and is entitled to inherit the father's share. The Mitakshara law does not bar a divided son from claiming a share in the father's property after the father's death.
Judgment Excerpts
A divided son, whether would be entitled to seek a share in the father’s property or whether only the undivided would succeed?
Under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the property of a deceased coparcener devolves by testamentary or intestate succession, not by survivorship.
Procedural History
The suit for partition was filed in O.S. No.126/2006 before the Senior Civil Judge, Haveri, which was decreed on 25.10.2013. Two appeals were filed: RFA No.100007/2014 by Smt. Annapurnavva and RFA No.100028/2014 by Channabasaayya. The appeals were heard together and reserved on 22.06.2021, with judgment delivered on 07.07.2021.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Section 96, Order 41 Rule 1
- Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Section 6, Section 8
