Child born from void marriage can inherit deceased father’s share in ancestral property, Karnataka High Court holds

Respondents 1 and 2 sued for partition, claiming that respondent 1 was the second wife of late Agasara Hanumanthappa and respondent 2 was their daughter. The appellant, the deceased’s son by his first wife, denied their relationship and entitlement to a share. The trial court found the relationship proved and declared respondent 2 entitled to a 1/4 share in the suit properties; the first appellate court affirmed that share, modified the treatment of the lands sold to respondents 3 and 4, and set aside the direction to the Sub-Registrar concerning cancellation of the sale deeds.

The appellant challenged the decrees in this second appeal.

1. Whether a child born from a void marriage, whose legitimacy is conferred by Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, may claim a share in the deceased parent’s interest in Mitakshara joint family property.

2. Whether the concurrent decrees recognising respondent 2’s 1/4 share raised a substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 CPC.

Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 confers legitimacy on children of void marriages, while Section 16(3) limits their property rights to the property of their parents and excludes rights in the property of other persons.

In Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, AIR 2023 SC 4707, the Supreme Court held that Section 16 must be read harmoniously with the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: a child legitimised under Section 16 may inherit the parent’s share in joint family property, but not acquire rights in the property of other coparceners.

Under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, the deceased coparcener’s interest is ascertained by a notional partition immediately before death; that interest then devolves by testamentary or intestate succession, as applicable.

The courts below had found that respondent 2 was the daughter of late Agasara Hanumanthappa and that he held a 1/2 share in the suit property, with the appellant holding the other 1/2 share.

Applying Revanasiddappa, the High Court held that respondent 2 could inherit from her father’s interest, but not claim against the appellant’s independent share. The deceased’s 1/2 share therefore devolved equally on respondent 2 and the appellant, giving respondent 2 a 1/4 share in the suit property and the appellant the remaining 3/4 share.

As the respondents had not challenged the first appellate court’s modification concerning the sold lands, the matter before the High Court was confined to respondent 2’s entitlement to a share.

The second appeal was dismissed, leaving the trial court and first appellate court decrees in force, subject to the first appellate court’s modifications.