Synopsis

The appellant (daughter) filed a suit for partition claiming that the suit schedule properties were ancestral/joint family properties inherited by her father from his ancestors. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the properties were the self‑acquired properties of the grandfather, which were partitioned among his children, and therefore became the absolute/self‑acquired properties of the father. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that: (i) property received by a son in a partition of his father’s self‑acquired property does not become ancestral property; (ii) the plaintiff failed to prove that the properties were coparcenary properties; (iii) the burden lay on the plaintiff to prove the ancestral character of the properties, which she failed to discharge; (iv) the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act applies only to coparcenary properties, not to self‑acquired properties.

1. Heading of the judgment

High court of karnataka at bengaluru

Regular first appeal no. 1568 of 2018

Smt. usha n swamy (appellant) vs. Sri m venkataswamy & ors. (respondents)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice d.k. singh and hon’ble mr. justice t.m. nadav

Core Law: Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Sections 6, 8 – Hindu Undivided Family – Coparcenary property – Self‑acquired property – Partition – Right of daughter as coparcener – Burden of proof.

Court: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.M. Nadav (Division Bench)
Date of Judgment: June 16, 2026
Case No.: Regular First Appeal No. 1568 of 2018

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

• Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 6 (devolution of interest in coparcenary property – amended w.e.f. 09.09.2005), Section 8 (general rules of succession in case of males), Section 9 (order of succession among heirs)

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 101, 102 (burden of proof)

• Mitakshara Law – Coparcenary property – Self‑acquired property – Partition – Doctrine of survivorship

Subject matter of the judgment:

Whether the daughter of a Hindu male can claim partition of properties that were received by her father in a partition of his father’s self‑acquired properties, on the ground that such properties became ancestral/joint family properties in the hands of her father, entitling her to a share as a coparcener under the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act.

Key legal principles applied:

• Mitakshara father has absolute right over self‑acquired property: A father governed by Mitakshara law has full and uncontrolled powers of disposition over his self‑acquired immovable property, to which no exception can be taken by his male or female descendants. A property gifted or bequeathed by a father to his son does not become ancestral property in the hands of the son simply because it came from the father.

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.