2009 (7) TMI 1379 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court ruling: Equal inheritance for children under Hindu Succession Act.

The Supreme Court held that Yashodamma was validly married to K Doddananjundaiah despite discrepancies in the marriage documents. It clarified that ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the marriage between K Doddananjundaiah and Yashodamma.2. Inheritance rights of Dinesh under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.3. Applicability of Sections 6 and 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.Summary:Issue 1: Validity of the marriage between K Doddananjundaiah and YashodammaThe appellants contended that Yashodamma was not validly married to K Doddananjundaiah. The trial court, relying on admissions by Neelamma and Kamalamma, birth certificates, and a settlement deed, concluded that Yashodamma was legally married to K Doddananjundaiah. The High Court upheld this finding. The Supreme Court noted that despite discrepancies in the 'lagna patrika,' the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts sufficiently established the marriage.Issue 2: Inheritance rights of Dinesh under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956The appellants argued that Dinesh, born after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was not a coparcener and should inherit under Section 8, not Section 6. The respondents contended that Dinesh, being a coparcener, inherited under Section 6. The Supreme Court held that Dinesh, born after the Act, would inherit as per Section 8, not as a coparcener, due to the legal fiction created by Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, legitimizing children of void marriages.Issue 3: Applicability of Sections 6 and 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956The Supreme Court clarified that the property in the hands of K Doddananjundaiah, allotted in a 1948 partition, would be his separate property and not coparcenary property. The Court emphasized that Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, would apply, making Dinesh and the daughters equal heirs. The Court cited precedents, including *Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur And Others v. Chander Sen And Others* and *Sheela Devi & Ors. V. Lal Chand & Anr.*, to support this interpretation.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that Dinesh would not be a coparcener and the appellants would inherit a 1/3rd share in the properties, not 1/10th as determined by the lower courts. The appeals were allowed with no costs.