Author: Khushi, Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak
INTRODUCTION
On 01 September 2023, a three-judge bench led by the Chief Justice of India, Dr. DY Chandrachud, while answering a reference, in Revanasiddappa and another versus Mallikarjun and others, answered to the issue of inheritance rights of an illegitimate child to the parents’ property when the marriage is null and void or voidable under the Hindu Marriage Act (Section 11 & 12)
ISSUES RAISED
The case raises the key issue of whether a child who is given the status of legitimacy under Section 16(1) or 16(2) is, by Section 16(3), entitled to the coparcenary property of the parents or is the child merely entitled to the self-earned property of the parents.
What does Section 16 of the HMA talks about legitimacy?
Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 does not directly address the legitimacy of children born out of marriages that are declared null and void. However, the legitimacy of children in the context of Hindu law is generally recognized based on certain principles:
i. Presumption of Legitimacy: Children born during the subsistence of a marriage, whether it is valid, voidable, or void, are generally presumed to be legitimate.
ii. Doctrine of Voidable Marriages: In cases where a marriage is voidable (not automatically void but can be annulled by court order), if the marriage is not annulled during the lifetime of both parties, the children born out of such a marriage are considered legitimate.
iii. Exception for Void Marriages: For marriages that are declared void ab initio (from the beginning), such as those falling under Section 11 (bigamy, prohibited relationship, etc.) and Section 12 (voidable marriages), the legitimacy of children can sometimes be questioned. However, in practical terms, courts tend to uphold the legitimacy of children born in such circumstances unless proven otherwise.
iv. Rights and Inheritance: Legitimacy of children under Hindu law determines their rights to inheritance, maintenance, and other legal benefits. Even if a marriage is declared null and void, children are entitled to maintenance and inheritance rights from their parents.
In summary, while Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act deals with grounds for declaring marriages null and void, the legitimacy of children born out of such marriages is generally upheld under Hindu law principles, unless there are specific legal challenges raised and proven otherwise.
The case formerly revolves around the partition of ancestral agricultural property governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The dispute arose when the respondent, Mallikarjun, filed a suit claiming a share in the property inherited from his deceased father along with his brothers, including the appellant, Revanasiddappa.
Partition under Hindu Law:
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, governs the partition and inheritance of property among Hindu families.
Ancestral property is defined as property that is inherited up to four generations of male ancestry.
The Act provides rights to coparceners (those who acquire by birth) in ancestral property.
Concept of Coparcenary:
Coparcenary refers to a legal entity comprising the eldest member and three subsequent generations of male lineage.
Each coparcener has an equal right to the ancestral property.
Female heirs were not considered coparceners until amendments in 2005.
Right of Partition:
Coparceners have the right to demand partition, leading to the division of property into individual shares.
The partition can be either by mutual agreement or by court decree.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Appellants in this case are the illegitimate sons of Shri Shivasharanappa.
The first wife of Shivasharanappa along with her two sons are the Respondents here. They filed a suit for partition of their share in the ancestral property of Shivasharanappa.
The first wife argued that Shivasharanappa married the second wife while their first marriage was already existing, thus, the children born out of the second marriage are illegitimate and they should not be entitled to any share in the ancestral property.
The Trial Court held in favour of the first wife and observed that she, her two sons and Shiva sharanappa are entitled to the ancestral property and thus the illegitimate children cannot have any claim on the ancestral property.
But thereafter the appellate Court held that the illegitimate children are entitled to a share in the Property.
In a second appeal by the first wife and her sons, the Karnataka High Court held that the illegitimate children are not entitled to a share in the coparcenary property by birth but are only entitled to the share of their father, which stands determined upon partition. The High Court further held that the illegitimate children would be entitled to such a share only if the father dies intestate and not during the lifetime of father.
The Appellant was aggrieved and thus approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court analysed the nature of the property to determine its character—whether ancestral or self-acquired.
It was established that the property was indeed ancestral, falling within the definition under Hindu law.
The court reaffirmed that ancestral property devolves by survivorship and not by testamentary succession.
Even if the property was partially self-acquired, it retains its ancestral character unless expressly partitioned.
ARGUMENTS BY THE APPELLANT
The appellant party argued that Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides all the rights on the property of the father to a child born of a void or voidable marriage. It in no way restricts the rights of such child. Moreover, it does not even qualify the word property as self-acquired or ancestral.
When the coparcenary property is partitioned, it includes the share of the parent as well.
He also claimed that there was insufficient evidence to prove the ancestral nature of the property and that the burden of proof had not been adequately discharged by Mallikarjun.
ARGUMENTS BY THE RESPONDENTS
The property of the father obtained upon partition from the coparcenary still remains coparcenary property and cannot be classified parents’ property in terms of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act and thus, a child conferred with legitimacy under this section has no right in it.
The legislative intent was to just remove the stigma about illegitimacy. It was not to interfere with the basic structure of coparcenary. Thus, illegitimate children have no right in the ancestral property and they only have right in self-acquired property.
JUDGMENT
The Hon’ble Court formulated its conclusions in the following terms:
The Court observed that provisions of the Hindu Succession Act have to be harmonized with Section 16 of Hindu Marriage Act.
In doing so, the Court observed that a child who has been given legitimacy under Section 16 of Hindu Marriage Act, would fall within the domain of the explanation ‘related by legitimate relationship’, under Section 3(1)(j) of the Hindu Succession Act.
The court pointed that Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act talks about the devolution of interest in coparcenary property. As per Section 6(3), if a Hindu dies his interest in the property of a Joint Hindu Family will devolve by intestate or testamentary succession and not by survivorship.
Section 6(3) of the Hindu Succession Act assumes that the partition had already taken place and the coparcenary property is deemed to have been divided before the death of the Hindu. Therefore, for determining the interest of a deceased Hindu in a coparcenary property, law assumes some state of affairs immediately prior to his death.
Now, once the share of the deceased in the coparcenary property is determined, his legal heirs include his children who have been conferred with legitimacy under the Hindu Marriage Act. They are entitled to a share in such property as determined by Section 6(3) of the Hindu Succession Act.
Principles Confirmed by the Supreme Court:
Unless proven otherwise, property inherited from paternal ancestors is presumed ancestral under Hindu law.
The burden lies on the party claiming self-acquisition to provide clear and convincing evidence.
Coparceners have an absolute right to demand partition of ancestral property and receive their rightful share.
Ancestral property devolves by survivorship among surviving coparceners and not through succession.
Partition ensures equitable distribution of property among family members, adhering to principles of justice and fairness.
The decision provides clarity on the distinction between ancestral and self-acquired property, guiding courts in resolving disputes effectively.
It also reinforces the rights of coparceners under Hindu law, ensuring fair treatment and equitable distribution of ancestral property.
Through this judgment, the Hon’ble Court by harmonizing the intrinsic provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act and Hindu Succession Act, achieved the twin objective of striking a balance between protecting the rights of a child, born from an ‘invalid’ or ‘illegal’ marriage, while not eclipsing the settled principles of coparcenary or Joint Hindu Family under the Mitakshara Law. Thus, a child who is illegitimate has been given a status of legitimacy by law and also a right in parents’ property both self-acquired and ancestral, but such a child cannot become a coparcener in the Hindu joint family.
Conclusion
The judgment in Revanasiddappa vs. Mallikarjun case is pivotal in Indian jurisprudence, particularly in the realm of ancestral property rights and coparcenary under Hindu law. It reaffirms established legal principles, clarifies evidentiary standards, and ensures equitable distribution of property among family members. This case continues to guide courts in resolving disputes over ancestral property, emphasizing fairness, justice, and adherence to statutory provisions.
Author: Khushi, a 2nd semester B.A. LL.B. student at Maharshi Dayanand university
FAQS
What is the Revanasiddappa vs. Mallikarjun case about?
The case revolves around a dispute over ancestral agricultural property in Karnataka, India. Mallikarjun, one of the brothers, sought partition of the property, claiming his share as a coparcener under Hindu law. Revanasiddappa contested this, arguing that the property was self-acquired by their father and not subject to partition.
What were the main legal issues in the Revanasiddappa vs. Mallikarjun case?
The main legal issues included:
– Determination of whether the property was ancestral or self-acquired.
– Coparcenary rights under Hindu law.
– Burden of proof in establishing the nature of the property.
– Principles of partition and equitable distribution.
What was the decision of the Supreme Court in this case?
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision in favor of Mallikarjun. It affirmed that the property in question was ancestral, rejecting Revanasiddappa’s appeal. The court emphasized the presumption of ancestral property under Hindu law and upheld Mallikarjun’s right as a coparcener to demand partition and receive his rightful share.
Why was this case significant in Indian jurisprudence?
This case is significant because it clarified important legal principles regarding ancestral property rights, coparcenary rights, and the burden of proof in property disputes under Hindu law. It set a precedent for future cases, guiding courts in interpreting and applying these principles consistently.
How did the Revanasiddappa vs. Mallikarjun case impact subsequent legal decisions?
The case served as a precedent in subsequent legal decisions involving disputes over ancestral property and coparcenary rights under Hindu law. It provided a framework for courts to resolve similar disputes based on established legal principles and evidentiary standards.
