Karnataka HC Restores Daughter’s Equal Half Share In Ancestral Property, Rejecting Appellate Court’s Reliance On Unproved Uncle’s Will

Bhavani and her brother Mahadev claimed interests in ancestral properties formerly belonging to their father, Balindra Gouda.

In O.S. No. 83/1992, Bhavani sought partition; the trial court awarded her and Mahadev equal shares.

The First Appellate Court modified that decree, relying on an alleged will and a partition deed, and reduced Bhavani’s share to one-third.

In O.S. No. 76/2001, Mahadev’s wife and children sought partition of his share.

The trial court granted them one-sixth shares each out of Mahadev’s half share and held a purchaser’s sale binding only to the extent of Mahadev’s share; the First Appellate Court modified the shares.

Bhavani brought the connected second appeals.

The Court applied Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, as interpreted in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, AIR 2020 SC 3717, recognizing a daughter’s entitlement to an equal share with a son in the relevant coparcenary property.

It also applied the principle that a will relied upon to establish title must be proved in the manner required by law; an unproved will cannot support an altered share.

The Court referred to Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act in assessing purchasers’ rights in the property transferred to them.

The alleged will was not produced in original or otherwise proved: only a photocopy was relied on, the proposed witness lacked knowledge, and Mahadev did not enter the witness box.

The Court therefore held that the First Appellate Court could not rely on the will to enlarge Mahadev’s share.

It also found that the partition deed relied on by that court was between Balindra Gouda and his brothers, not the later partition alleged in the defence; it had made the suit properties Balindra’s properties.

With no proved basis for altering the shares, the Court applied Vineeta Sharma and held Bhavani entitled to an equal share with Mahadev.

Purchasers’ rights were confined to the share allocable to Mahadev.

It set aside the judgments in R.A. Nos. 198/2006, 200/2006 and 89/2007, and restored the trial court judgments and decrees in O.S. Nos. 83/1992 and 76/2001.

The purchasers were held entitled to claim only from the share allotted to Mahadev.