High Court of Karnataka
The Karnataka High Court pointed out the “unintentional” ambiguity in the amended provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which deals with the transfer of interest in coparcenary property, and urged the Union government to “consider redrafting the Act to remove ambiguity regarding the rights of Hindu widows and mothers”.
A Division Bench comprising Justice R. Devdas and Justice B. Muralidhar Pai made observations in this regard while deciding an appeal filed by Sharanavva of Hirekoppa of Ron taluk in Gadag district challenging a decree passed by a civil court on a dispute between her and other family members over rights to property that belonged to her late husband.
“Pure Inadvertence”
“The unamended § 6, more specifically the first proviso, by referring to the heirs of the 1st class of the deed, ensured a share in the fictitious distribution to the widow and mother of the deceased together with the son, daughter, etc. However, the amended § 6 does not contain the reference to the heirs of the 1st class of the deed,” pointed out the Bench.
Stating that “a plain reading of the amended provisions of Section 6 does not contain a reference to Scheduled Class 1 heirs such as widows and mothers”, the Bench said there could be no way of doubt as explained in the 2020 Supreme Court judgment in Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma and others that “the framers of the Act did not contemplate or intend to take away the rights of the Hindu widow or mother of the deceased as provided in the unamended provisions of Section 6”.
“It is a mere oversight that the other 1st class heirs like widow, mother, widow of a deceased son, etc., who have found a place in the 1st class of the deed and their rights under unamended Section 6, have been omitted in the amended provision,” the Bench pointed out.
“All rights reserved, but…”
The Bench further stated 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 pass by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be, ‘under this Act’ and not by probate, this alone will not protect the rights of the second such pre-cognition class-1.” son etc. unless the list in the amended provision expressly refers to heirs of class 1.
“Therefore, we feel that it is the bounden duty of this court to bring this matter to the notice of the legislature. It may be necessary to recast the provision with reference to Class 1 heirs of the deed to avoid confusion,” the bench said while directing the court registry to send a copy of the judgment to the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs for necessary action.
Published – 1 Jan 2026 20:02 IST
