REVANASIDDAPPA vs MALLIKARJUN, 2023

REVANASIDDAPPA vs MALLIKARJUN, 2023

Case Title and Citation REVANASIDDAPPA & ANR. versus MALLIKARJUN & ORS. Civil Appeal No 2844 of 2011 (with connected appeals). The judgment citation is 2023 INSC 783.

Factual Background

The Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (HMA) declares a child born from a null or void marriage (Section 11) or a voidable marriage annulled by a decree (Section 12) to “be legitimate” by Section 16(1) and 16(2). However, Section 16(3) stipulates that such a child shall not have “any rights in or to the property of any person, other than the parents”.

Earlier decisions of the Supreme Court, including Jinia Keotin, Neelamma, and Bharatha Matha, interpreted Section 16(3) narrowly, holding that children born from void or voidable marriages were not entitled to claim inheritance in ancestral coparcenary property, but only in the self-acquired properties of their parents.

The correctness of these restrictive decisions was doubted by a two-judge Bench in Revanasiddappa v Mallikarjun. This referring order questioned the exclusion of ancestral property since Section 16(3) does not qualify the term ‘property’ as ancestral or self-acquired, and argued that children declared legitimate by the statute should be on par with other legitimate children regarding their parents’ property. This conflict led to the present reference before a three-Judge Bench.

Issue(s)

1. Whether a child conferred with legislative legitimacy under Section 16(1) or 16(2) of the HMA 1955 is entitled, by reason of Section 16(3), to the ancestral/coparcenary property of the parents or is confined merely to the self-earned/separate property of the parents.
2. Whether the legislative intent of Section 16 is to confer legitimacy in a manner that makes the child a coparcener, thereby entitling them to initiate or receive a share in partition (actual or notional).
3. At what point a specific property transitions to become the exclusive “property of the parent” in which such children hold entitlement, in accordance with Section 16(3).

Decision of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court answered the reference by holding that the child conferred with legitimacy under Section 16(1) or 16(2) of the HMA 1955 is not a coparcener by birth in the Hindu Mitakshara Joint Family.

However, the Court clarified that such a child is entitled to a share in the property of their parents, which includes the share the parent would have received upon a notional partition of the Joint Hindu Family property immediately before the parent’s death.

Reason for the Decision

1. Limitation on Rights (Section 16(3)): Section 16(3) explicitly restricts the property rights conferred by legislative legitimacy, stating that it shall not be construed as conferring any rights “in or to the property of any person, other than the parents”. This language in the negative places the position beyond doubt.
2. No Coparcenary Status: The conferment of legitimacy does not elevate the child to the status of a coparcener. The fundamental concept of a coparcener involves the acquisition of an interest by birth; holding that children covered by Section 16 are coparceners would affect the property rights of other persons (other coparceners), which is directly contrary to the mandate of Section 16(3).
3. Harmonization and Notional Partition: The Hindu Succession Act (HSA) 1956 must be harmonized with Section 16(3) of the HMA 1955. For a parent who was a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener, their interest in the joint property must be ascertained by invoking the legal fiction in the Explanation to Section 6(3) of the HSA 1956.
4. Defining “Property of the Parent”: This legal fiction mandates the assumption that a partition took place immediately before the parent’s death. The share that would have been allotted to the deceased parent in this notional partition constitutes their property.
5. Succession: Once the deceased parent’s share is ascertained through this notional partition, that share devolves upon all the heirs, including the children whose legitimacy is protected under Section 16(1) and 16(2) of the HMA 1955. Such a child will have a share in the property allotted to the parent, but not in the notional partition itself.

Conclusion

Children born from void or voidable marriages who have been conferred legitimacy under Section 16 of the HMA 1955 are entitled to inherit the property of their parents. They are considered legitimate for the purpose of succession under the HSA 1956. However, they do not acquire the status of a coparcener by birth. Their rights are strictly confined to the share their parent would have acquired upon a notional partition of the Mitakshara coparcenary property immediately before the parent’s death, ensuring the harmonization of the legitimacy provisions of the HMA with the property limitations imposed by Section 16(3).