Karnataka High Court flags ‘inadvertent’ ambiguity in copercenary rights in amended Hindu Succession Act

Flagging an ‘inadvertent’ ambiguity in the amended provisions of the Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, that deals with the devolution of interest in coparcenary property, the High Court of Karnataka has urged the Union government “to consider recasting the law to remove confusion regarding the rights of Hindu widows and mother”.

A Division Bench comprising Justice R. Devdas and Justice B. Muralidhara Pai made observations in this regard while adjudicating an appeal filed by Sharanavva of Hirekoppa of Ron taluk in Gadag district challenging a decree passed by a civil court on the dispute between her and the other family members on the rights over the properties that belonged to her deceased husband.

‘Sheer inadvertence’

“The unamended Section 6, more particularly the first proviso, by reference to Class-1 heirs of the Schedule, ensured a share at a notional partition to a widow and mother of the deceased along with son; daughter, etc. However, the amended Section 6 does not contain reference to Class-1 heirs of the Schedule,” the Bench pointed out.

Stating that though “a plain reading of the amended provisions of the Section 6 does not contain a reference to Class-1 heirs mentioned in the Schedule like widows and mother”, the Bench said that there could be no manner of doubt, as explained in the 2020 judgment of the apex court in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma and others, that “the law makers did not contemplate or intend to take away the rights of a Hindu widow or mother of the deceased, as was provided in the unamended provisions of Section 6.”

“It is by sheer inadvertence, that the other Class-1 heirs such as widow, mother, widow of predeceased son; etc., who find place in Class-1 of the Schedule and their rights flowing in terms of the unamended Section 6 have been missed out in the amended provision,” the Bench pointed out.

‘Rights intact but...’

Further, the Bench said that although sub-section 3 of Section 6 provides that “the interest of a Hindu in the property of a joint Hindu family governed by Mithakshara Law, shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be, ‘under this Act’ and not by survivorship, that by itself will not protect the rights of the other Class-1 heirs such as widow, mother, widow of predeceased son; etc., unless specific reference is made to Class-1 heirs in the Schedule, in the amended provision.”

“We therefore feel that it is the bounden duty of this Court to draw the attention of the law makers in this regard. Perhaps, a recasting of the provision, with reference to Class-1 heirs of the Schedule is necessary to avoid confusion,” the bench said while directing the court’s registry to send a copy of the judgment to the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs for necessary action.