Your father has several properties in his and decides to sell one of them. Do you as a daughter have a claim on the property? In one such case, a daughter who sought a share in properties held by her father has lost her legal battle after the Karnataka High Court held that she failed to prove that the properties were ancestral or coparcenary properties in which she had acquired a right by birth.The case involved a dispute over whether properties that had come to the woman’s father from her grandfather retained the character of ancestral property, giving her a right to seek partition under the Hindu Succession Act.
What the case is about
The woman, based in the US, has been living abroad since her marriage in 1979. She filed a suit seeking partition of family properties and an equal share in them after her father sold one property. The daughter sued her parents and sister for partition of four family properties. Her case was that the properties formed part of the Hindu joint family estate and that she was entitled to a share as a coparcener.Also Read | 83-year-old woman got Rs 12.28 lakh after son’s death, but sought Rs 15,000 maintenance from college-going granddaughter and a share of family pension from son’s widow; Kerala HC rejects both claimsShe also sought rights in movable and immovable assets, including family jewellery, bank deposits, share investments and debentures, which she alleged were joint family properties.The suit covered four schedule properties.The woman claimed that Schedule A was ancestral property which had fallen to her father’s share. She further claimed that income generated through quarrying on that property had been used to acquire Schedule B. She also claimed that her father had inherited Schedules C and D and that the income from the family properties had contributed to the family’s other assets.Her legal argument relied significantly on Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act as amended with effect from September 9, 2005. The amended provision recognises a daughter as a coparcener by birth in a Mitakshara joint Hindu family, with the same rights as a son in coparcenary property.The trial court rejected the daughter’s claim and dismissed the suit. She then approached the High Court where she lost again.
Why did the High Court rule against the daughter?
The Karnataka High Court considered whether Schedules A, C and D were the self-acquired properties of the woman’s father or whether he had inherited them from his ancestors in a manner that made them joint Hindu family properties.Also Read | Man enters JDA for land, gets 6 flats from builder and transfers 5 to wife, but gets tax notice; ITAT Delhi deletes Rs 4.14 crore additions after finding no stock-in-trade conversion or saleThe evidence of the daughter’s own witness became important.Her paternal uncle said Schedule A had been purchased by his father. He also admitted that the portion forming Schedule A had come to the woman’s father’s share and that it was absolute property.His evidence regarding Schedule C was similar. He stated that it had also been purchased by his father and that, in the partition, Schedule C came to the woman’s father’s share. He agreed that Schedule C was the father’s absolute property.The High Court also found that Schedule D was the self-acquired property of the woman’s grandfather and that it came to her father’s share as a result of partition.“The said witness clearly admits that the property fell to the share of defendant No.1 under the said partition/ family arrangement is his self-acquired property,” the court said.“The admissions given by PW.2 clearly indicate that the properties partitioned were the self-acquired properties of the grandfather. In such an eventuality, there cannot be any adverse opinion against the defendants for their failure to lead evidence, when the plaintiff, herself, has failed to discharge the initial burden casted upon her,” the court said.The court therefore concluded that Schedules A, C and D were not ancestral or coparcenary properties. They had become the individual and separate properties of the woman’s father.“These properties are neither the joint Hindu family properties nor coparcenery properties. These properties became individual/separate properties of defendant No.1,” the court said.The High Court then examined the significance of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act.It noted that the 2005 amendment made a daughter a coparcener by birth in a Mitakshara joint Hindu family and gave her the same rights as a son in coparcenary property. But the court stressed that the right arises in coparcenary property, not in every property owned by a parent.“Thus if a property is joint Hindu family property, then only a coparcener shall acquire the right by birth and not otherwise,” it said.The High Court specifically said that if the properties in Schedules A, C and D were the grandfather’s self-acquired properties, he had the right to dispose of them. Once they came to his children through the partition, they became the separate properties of those children rather than retaining a coparcenary character.The court also considered Schedule B. The Karnataka High Court’s analysis stated that, even according to the woman’s case, Schedule B had been purchased from income generated from Schedule A and treated it as the father’s self-acquired property. The High Court ultimately found that the woman had failed to establish that the properties claimed by her were coparcenary properties.The court said, “There was no unity of ownership and possession between all members of the family. The plaintiff was never in possession of the property, which became the self-acquired properties of her father. In the absence of unity of possession of the plaintiff along with other family members i.e. parents and defendant No.3/sister. The plaintiff did not acquire an interest by birth in the properties, which are the individual/separate properties of her father.”“It is well settled that Mitakshara father has absolute right of disposition over his self-acquired property, to which no exception can be taken by male/female descendants,” it added.Explaining the judgement, Gaurav Dasgupta, Partner, Khaitan & Co said, “The Court drew the line clearly. What the grandfather bought with his own money was his self-acquired property, and he was free to deal with it as he wished. When he handed it to his children through a family partition, it became each child’s separate property. It did not become joint family property in which grandchildren acquire rights at birth.”“The Court added that the result is the same whether the children received it through a partition or by ordinary inheritance. A daughter’s right as a coparcener applies only where the property actually has a coparcenary character, and she must prove that character first,” he tells TOI.Also Read | Woman declared Rs 67.4 lakh ancestral jewellery in her ITR which led to additions by tax department; ITAT Mumbai deleted it on basis of old records, but rejected her Rs 12 lakh HUF brokerage claim
Significance of ruling
Gaurav Dasgupta says daughter’s right by birth covers ancestral property, not her father’s own property or even a property which has been gifted to her father or her father had acquired by way of a partition/settlement from his own father.“Only when a person inherits a property from any one of his three immediate paternal ancestors, his sons, grandsons and great grandsons, acquire an interest in it by birth or under Section 6 of the Hindus Succession act, after amendment w.e.f. 09.09.2005,” he tells TOI.According to Dasgupta, this judgment is a timely reminder that the landmark 2005 reform giving daughters equal coparcenary rights is powerful, but it is not a blank cheque.“Many people now assume that a daughter can claim a share in anything her father owns. That is not the law, and this ruling explains why. However, post the death of the father, in case of intestate succession, she will be treated equally like her siblings at the time of determination of succession,” he adds.According to Dasgupta, what this settles is the distinction families most often get wrong: ‘property from my grandfather’ is not automatically ‘ancestral property’. What it leaves open is what happens after the father dies. His separate property then passes under the ordinary succession rules, unless he has made a will or a gift. That is a separate claim, and this partition suit did not decide it, he says.He advises that before suing for partition, it’s important to trace how each property was first acquired and collect the documents, such as old partition deeds and purchase records.
