REVANASIDDAPPA & ANR. versus MALLIKARJUN & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 14 S.C.R. 320 · Decided: 01-09-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Reference answered

cites 12 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 320 : 2023 INSC 783
320
CASE DETAILS
REVANASIDDAPPA & ANR.
v.
MALLIKARJUN & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2844 of 2011)
SEPTEMBER 01, 2023
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI, 
J.B. PARDIWALA AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether a child who is conferred with 
legislative legitimacy u/s. 16(1) or 16(2) is, by reason of s. 16(3), of the 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 entitled to the ancestral/coparcenary property 
of the parents or is the child merely entitled to the self-earned/separate 
property of the parents.
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – s. 16 – Children of void and voidable 
marriages – Conferment of legitimacy – Inheritance rights of legitimised 
children:
Held: While conferring legitimacy in terms of s. 16(1) on a child born 
from a marriage which is void u/s. 11, and under s. 16(2) to a child born 
from a voidable marriage which has been annulled by a decree of nullity 
u/s. 12, it is stipulated in s. 16(3) that such a child will have rights to or in 
the property of the parents and not in the property of any other person – ss. 
11, 12. [Para 54(iii)]
Hindu Succession Act 1956 – s. 3(1)(j) – ‘related by legitimate 
kinship’ – Construction of the provisions of s. 3(1)(j) including the 
proviso:
Held: Legitimacy conferred by s. 16 of the HMA 1955 on a child born 
from a void or, voidable marriage has to be read into the provisions of the 
HSA 1956 – Child who is legitimate under sub-section (1) or sub-section 
(2) of s.16 of the HMA would, for the purposes of s. 3(1)(j), fall within 
the ambit of the explanation ‘related by legitimate kinship’ and cannot be 
321
regarded as an ‘illegitimate child’ for the purposes of the proviso – Hindu 
Marriage Act, 1955 – s. 16. [Para 54(iv)]
Hindu Succession Act 1956 – s. 6 – Devolution of interest in 
coparcenary property – Substitution of s. 6 by Act 39 of 2005 - Eff ect: 
Held: By the substitution of s. 6, equal rights have been granted to 
daughters, in the same manner as sons as indicated by sub-section (1) of s. 
6 – In terms of sub-section (3) of s. 6 as amended, on a Hindu dying after 
the commencement of the Amending Act of 2005 his interest in the property 
of a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law will devolve by 
testamentary or intestate succession, and not by survivorship – Said rule 
of devolution has been made the norm – Prior to the substitution of s. 6 
by the Amending Act of 2005, s. 6 stipulated the devolution of interest in 
a Mitakshara coparcenary property of a male Hindu by survivorship on 
the surviving members of the coparcenary – Exception to devolution by 
survivorship was where the deceased had left surviving a female relative 
specifi ed in Class I of the Schedule or a male relative in Class I claiming 
through a female relative, in which event the interest of the deceased in a 
Mitakshara coparcenary property would devolve by testamentary or intestate 
succession. [Para 54(v), (vi)]
Hindu Succession Act 1956 – s. 6 – Devolution of interest in 
coparcenary property – Ascertainment of share on basis of notional 
partition:
Held: While providing for the devolution of the interest of a Hindu in 
the property of a Joint Hindu family governed by Mitakshara law, dying after 
the commencement of the Amending Act of 2005 by testamentary or intestate 
succession, s.6(3) lays down a legal fi ction namely that the coparcenary 
property shall be deemed to have been divided as if a partition had taken 
place – For ascertaining the interest of a deceased Hindu Mitakshara 
coparcener, the law mandates the assumption of a state of aff airs immediately 
prior to the death of the coparcener – Once the share of the deceased in 
property that would have been allotted to him if a partition had taken place 
immediately before his death is ascertained, his heirs including the children 
conferred with legitimacy u/s.16 of the HMA, would be entitled to their 
share in the property which would have been allotted to the deceased upon 
the notional partition, if it had taken place. [Para 54(viii), (ix)]
REVANASIDDAPPA & ANR. v. MALLIKARJUN & ORS. 
322 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
Hindu Succession Act 1956 – s. 6(3) – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – s. 
16 – s. 16(3) of the HMA 1955 and s. 6(3) of the HSA 1956, if inconsistent:
Held: There is no inconsistency between s. 16(3) of the HMA 1955 
and s. 6(3) of the HSA 1956 – Provisions of the HSA 1956 have to be 
harmonized with the mandate in s. 16(3) of the HMA 1955 which indi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.