BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday ruled that the property acquired by a Hindu woman through partition cannot be construed to be an acquisition by way of inheritance and her legal heirs would acquire the rights of such property after her death by way of intestate succession.
“... the legislature has used the word inheritance in the light of intestate succession and Section 15(2) carved out an exception to the general rule mentioned in Section 15(1) Hindu Succession Act. Therefore, the acquisition of property by a female Hindu either by Will or Gift will also include the acquisition by way of a partition in the family. Once there is a partition and properties have been divided by metes and bounds, it becomes the absolute property of such sharers. If the sharer had any surviving heirs at the time of partition, the property may become the joint family property of the acquirer and his family members,” the court said.
Justice CM Joshi passed the order while allowing an appeal filed by a 72-year-old agriculturist, Basanagouda, in 2010 against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and district court in Raichur in 2008 and 2009, respectively.
Basanagouda married Eshwaramma 1960, who was the owner of a piece of land measuring 22 acres and 18 guntas at Athanur in Manvi taluk. The property was acquired through the oral partition between her father and brothers and later it was recorded in the form of a memorandum of partition and registered in 1974.
After the death of his wife in 1998, Basanagouda became an exclusive legal heir. The couple had no children. However, the name of a brother of Eshwaramma remained in the record of rights due to an error. Taking advantage of this, her brothers started obstructing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land by her husband. Basanagouda filed the suit before the trial court as well as the district court. Both courts dismissed it. Subsequently, Basanagouda filed an appeal before the high court.
Allowing the appeal by declaring Basanagouda as the absolute owner of the property, the high court quashed the decree of both courts.
Noting that neither the trial court nor the district judge has taken pains to look into the averments
made in the memorandum of partition which categorically mentioned that the sharers thereof are the absolute owners of the property, the high court said that the courts did not critically examine the provisions of Section 15(2) of the Act and memorandum. They went under the presumption that a partition deed does not create rights, but only recognises the inheritance of property, the court added.