Married daughters can inherit shares in land granted to their father under Karnataka land-reform law, High Court rules

The plaintiffs sought partition and separate possession of shares in Schedule A and B properties, claiming that the properties belonged to Shivappa and had not been partitioned.

Shivappa’s heirs included his wife and daughters, his son Basavaraj, and another son, Mahadevappa; Basavaraj’s widow and daughter were the appellants.

The defendants disputed the properties’ joint-family character, asserting that the lands were tenanted lands granted to Shivappa and his brother, and that the plaintiffs had relinquished their rights by a hakku bitta patra dated 15 June 2006.

The trial court decreed the suit in part, awarding the plaintiffs 1/7 share each; the first appellate court affirmed that decree.

The defendants appealed under Section 100 CPC.

Whether married daughters were entitled to a share in lands granted to their predecessors under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, having regard to Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and Har Naraini Devi v. Union of India.

Whether the appellants established a basis to disturb the concurrent findings of the courts below on the plaintiffs’ entitlement to inherit and share in the suit properties.

The Court relied on the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the principle that its succession provisions govern inheritance of property, including property acquired through a grant of occupancy rights under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act; that Act does not govern the question of succession.

Following N. Padmamma v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy, (2015) 1 SCC 417, and the Karnataka High Court decisions in Smt. Mallawwa Laxman Yadahalli v. Shri Siddappa Mallappa Khavatakoppa, NC:2025:KHC-D:8692, and Vishnu v. Smt. Buddavva, RSA No. 100608/2019, the Court stated that a married daughter may claim a share in lands granted by the Land Tribunal, where the property remains joint.

It distinguished Har Naraini Devi v. Union of India, AIR 2022 SC 4632, as concerning Section 50(a) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act and the deletion of Section 4(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, rather than succession to occupancy-right lands in this case.

The parties’ relationship was undisputed, and both sides claimed through Shivappa; the dispute concerned whether the plaintiffs could inherit shares in the tenanted lands.

Applying the cited authorities, the Court held that the Karnataka Land Reforms Act did not exclude the daughters from succession to the granted lands.

It found no material warranting a different view from the concurrent findings below and answered the substantial question of law in the affirmative.

It dismissed the regular second appeal, leaving the decree awarding the plaintiffs 1/7 share each undisturbed; pending applications were disposed of as unnecessary.