Summary of this article
Daughters retain inheritance rights despite earlier family partitions
Section 6(5) does not bar independent succession claims
Supreme Court restores daughters’ partition suit for trial
The Supreme Court has held that daughters cannot be denied their share in a father’s property merely because the sons had already divided the property among themselves before the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act. The court said that daughters continue to have inheritance rights if the father dies without leaving a will.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih delivered the ruling while hearing a property dispute of one B.M. Seenappa, who died intestate in 1985. He was survived by his wife, three daughters, and four sons.
According to court records, the sons carried out an oral partition of the properties in 1985 and later executed a registered partition deed in 2000. The daughters were not included in the arrangement and did not receive any share in the properties.
In 2007, the daughters approached the court seeking partition of five family properties and claimed a one-eighth share each.
The High Court Had Dismissed The Suit
The Karnataka High Court had rejected the daughters’ suit at an early stage after accepting the sons’ argument that the 2000 partition was protected under Section 6(5) of the Hindu Succession Act.
The provision protects certain family partitions completed before December 20, 2004, from being affected by the 2005 amendment, which granted daughters equal co-parcenary rights by birth.
However, the Supreme Court clarified that the amendment does not take away a daughter’s separate inheritance rights in the father’s property when he dies without a will.
The court explained that when a Hindu man dies intestate, his property is inherited equally by Class I heirs, including sons, daughters, and the widow. Therefore, daughters have an independent right to claim a share in such property.
Supreme Court Clarifies Scope Of Section 6(5)
The bench observed that Section 6(5) only protects older partitions from being reopened because of the 2005 amendment. It does not prevent daughters from seeking their lawful share through inheritance.
The court said treating the old partition deed as automatically binding on daughters would go beyond the purpose of the law.
It also noted that the daughters were not parties to the 2000 partition deed, making it necessary for the trial court to examine whether the arrangement could legally bind them.
The judgment further stated that disputed questions relating to the validity of the partition required a proper trial and could not be decided at the threshold stage.
Trial Court Proceedings To Continue
The Supreme Court also questioned why the High Court allowed a second application seeking dismissal of the suit when an earlier application on similar grounds had already been rejected years ago.
The bench held that repeated attempts to dismiss the suit on the same issue were not proper.
Setting aside the Karnataka High Court’s 2024 order, the Supreme Court restored the daughters’ partition suit before the trial court and directed that the matter proceed expeditiously.
The court also ordered that the status quo on the disputed properties be maintained until further directions are issued by the trial court.
FAQs
1. Can daughters claim father’s property if there is no will?
Yes. If a Hindu father dies without a will, daughters are Class I heirs and are entitled to an equal share along with other legal heirs.
2. Does an old family partition remove daughters’ rights?
No. The Supreme Court has clarified that earlier partitions among sons alone do not cancel a daughter’s independent inheritance rights.
3. What is Section 6(5) of the Hindu Succession Act?
It protects certain partitions made before 2004 from the effect of the 2005 amendment but does not bar inheritance claims under succession law.
