Absolute ownership of Hindu woman cannot be defeated by mutation entries — Sons had no title to sell: Karnataka High Court

“Female Hindu Had Absolute Ownership, But Delay Defeated Her Rights……..Exclusive title proved under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, but claim lost to time — suit barred under Article 58 of Limitation Act”, In a notable judgment balancing substantive property rights with the rigours of procedural law, the Karnataka High Court while holding that a Hindu woman had absolute title to the land she purchased in 1963, dismissed her second appeal due to delay in asserting her claim.

Justice C.M. Joshi concluded that although the plaintiff had lawfully acquired the land and retained exclusive ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, her 1995 suit challenging a 1986 sale deed executed by her sons was barred by limitation, as she failed to prove either fraud or reasonable diligence under Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

“Though the plaintiff established exclusive ownership over the suit property, she failed to show that the 1986 alienation was concealed fraudulently or that she acted with reasonable diligence after learning about it. Thus, the bar of limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act squarely applies,” observed the Court [Para 44].

“Absolute ownership of Hindu woman cannot be defeated by mutation entries — Sons had no title to sell”

At the heart of the case was a 3-acre 10-gunta agricultural land in Raibag Taluk, which the plaintiff, Smt. Rukmavva, had purchased in 1963 under a registered sale deed (Exhibit P4) while her sons (Defendants No. 2 and 3) were minors.

Justice Joshi unequivocally rejected the buyer’s (Defendant No.1's) contention that the property was joint family property, stating:

“The defendants failed to show any evidence of the property being put into the hotchpot. At the time of purchase, the sons were aged 12 and 2 years respectively. The claim of joint contribution is clearly untenable.” [Para 24]

“A property acquired by a Hindu female by purchase becomes her absolute property under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. Mutation entries made based on a Varadi (informal report) do not override this statutory right.” [Para 27]

The Court emphasized that mutation entries — including M.E. No. 1927 made in 1983 — are not documents of title and do not confer ownership:

“Mutation entries cannot convey title. The property was exclusively purchased and held by the plaintiff. Her sons had no legal right to alienate it through a sale deed in 1986.” [Para 31

Sale based on revenue entries without legal title declared invalid, but suit still fails due to limitation

The defendants had relied on a Varadi (Ex.D11) allegedly given by the plaintiff, based on which their names were entered in the revenue records. Subsequently, they sold the property to Defendant No.1 under a registered sale deed dated 02.09.1986.

The Court concluded: “There is no evidence that the plaintiff intended to relinquish her exclusive ownership or that she consented to a partition. No valid conveyance was executed by her. Hence, the sale by her sons to Defendant No.1 is legally void.” [Paras 32–33]

However, having found that title remained with the plaintiff, the Court turned to the critical issue of whether her suit was filed within limitation.

No fraud alleged — Plaintiff’s knowledge presumed due to proximity and conduct

The plaintiff claimed she came to know of the fraudulent mutation and alienation only weeks before filing the suit in 1995. But the Court disbelieved this claim, pointing out:

• The plaintiff lived with Defendant No.2, and Defendant No.3 regularly visited and stayed with her.

• She raised no objection when similar mutation entries were made for her other lands.

• In cross-examination, she denied her own signature on the vakalath and plaint, undermining her own credibility.

Referring to Sections 17(1)(b) and (d) of the Limitation Act, the Court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Saranpal Kaur Anand v. Praduman Singh Chandhok [(2022) 8 SCC 401], emphasizing that:

“Section 17 of the Limitation Act does not defer limitation merely because fraud is alleged. The party must establish actual fraudulent concealment and lack of reasonable means of discovery. A vague claim of ignorance does not suffice.” [Para 37]

Justice Joshi observed:“The plaintiff’s conduct falls short of the requirements under Section 17. She made no specific allegations of fraud, and her close proximity to her sons, the vendors, belies her claim of ignorance.” [Para 41]

Law cannot protect those who sleep on their rights – Dismissal of suit upheld

Ultimately, the Court upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Court (2008) and First Appellate Court (2007), both of which had dismissed the plaintiff’s suit, holding it was time-barred under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a three-year period from when the right to sue first accrues.

“The sale was executed in 1986, and the plaintiff took no steps till 1995. Having failed to establish any of the exceptions under Section 17, the suit is clearly barred.” [Para 44]

Legal title without timely enforcement renders claim unenforceable

This judgment reinforces a settled legal position: title alone is insufficient without timely enforcement of rights. While the Hindu woman’s absolute ownership was judicially recognized, her failure to act within the limitation period, combined with lack of diligence, proved fatal.

By affirming that mutation entries do not override a registered sale deed and that female Hindus hold property absolutely under Section 14(1), the Court upheld substantive rights. But by invoking Article 58 and Section 17 of the Limitation Act, it ensured procedural discipline in asserting those rights.

Date of Decision: 21 November 2025