In a significant observation, the Dharwad bench of the Karnataka High Court has directed the Union government to consider rectifying a crucial legal gap in the amended Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The court highlighted that the current wording fails to adequately protect the inheritance rights of certain female heirs, including widows and mothers.
Court Identifies Ambiguity in Amended Law
The division bench, comprising Justices R Devdas and B Muralidhara Pai, made these remarks while hearing two Regular First Appeals stemming from a land dispute in Koppal district. The case revolved around the inherited properties of a man named Mudakanagouda.
The bench pointed out that before the landmark 2005 amendment, the law ensured a share for widows and mothers through a mechanism known as notional partition. This provision guaranteed their stake alongside sons and daughters in joint family property.
However, the court noted an inadvertent omission in the amended Section 6. While the amendment shifted the devolution of a Hindu's interest in joint family property to testamentary or intestate succession (rather than survivorship), it did not expressly include references to other Class I heirs like widows, mothers, and widows of predeceased sons.
Call for Legislative Clarity to Protect Heirs
The judges observed that Section 6(3) alone is insufficient to protect these heirs unless they are specifically mentioned in the amended provision. The bench has therefore called upon the Centre, through the Ministry of Law and Parliamentary Affairs, to consider recasting the provision. The aim is to eliminate ambiguity and ensure the rights of all Class I heirs listed in the Schedule of the Act are explicitly safeguarded.
"The amended provision should expressly refer to Class I heirs listed in the Schedule to avoid ambiguity and ensure their rights are adequately protected," the bench stated.
Resolution of the Koppal Land Dispute
Applying the law to the case at hand, the court delivered a clear verdict on the property distribution. It held that Sharanavva, who claimed to be the issueless first wife of Mudakanagouda, was entitled to a half share in the properties at Hirekoppa village. Her claim was validated as she fell under the Class I category of legal heirs.
The remaining half of the property was directed to be divided equally among Mudakanagouda's three children from Nimbavva. Consequently, each child will receive a one-fourth share of the total property.
Regarding a separate claim by an individual named Eshwar, who asserted he had purchased some lands from Mudakanagouda, the bench clarified that he could pursue his legal remedies concerning the share now declared in favour of Sharanavva.
This judicial directive puts the spotlight on the need for precise legislative language to prevent the dilution of hard-won rights for women in matters of succession and ancestral property.
