Child Born From Void Marriage Entitled To Share In Father's Notional Coparcenary Property: Karnataka High Court

"Once the share of the deceased in property that would have been allotted to him if a partition had taken place immediately before his death is ascertained, his heirs including the children who have been conferred with legitimacy under Section 16 of the HMA 1955, will be entitled to their share in the property which would have been allotted to the deceased upon the notional partition..." High Court of Karnataka, in an authoritative decision, held that a child born from a void or voidable marriage is statutorily clothed with legitimacy under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and is legally entitled to succeed to the deceased father's share in ancestral coparcenary property ascertained upon a notional partition.

A Single Judge bench of Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar observed that while children of void marriages have no independent right to seek partition during their father's lifetime, they inherit equally alongside legitimate legal heirs in the undivided share of the deceased parent under Section 6(3) read with Sections 8 and 10 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

The dispute arose out of an original suit for partition and separate possession filed by the second wife and daughter of late Agasara Hanumanthappa against his son from the first wife and certain third-party purchasers who had purchased portions of the ancestral joint family properties. The trial court held that the second wife was not entitled to any share due to the invalidity of the second marriage, but held that the daughter was entitled to a 1/4th share carved out of the deceased father's notional half share. On appeal, the First Appellate Court confirmed the 1/4th share allotted to the daughter under Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, while setting aside the trial court's direction to cancel the registered sale deeds and adjusting the alienated lands equitably into the son's 3/4th share, prompting the son to prefer a regular second appeal.

The primary question before the court was whether a child born from a void marriage is entitled to claim a share in ancestral joint family property upon the demise of the father. The court was also called upon to determine whether the courts below erred in declaring alienation made by a coparcener non-binding to the extent of such illegitimate child's ascertained share.

Statutory Legitimacy Under Section 16 Of Hindu Marriage Act

The High Court observed that the legal entitlement of children born from void or voidable marriages to inherit parental property is no longer res integra following the definitive pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Revansiddappa and another v. Mallikarjun and another (AIR 2023 SC 4707). Justice Krishna Kumar noted that the legislature, by enacting the amended Section 16(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, intended to remove the social stigma and civil disabilities previously attached to children of void marriages.

The court noted that Section 16(1) confers legitimacy by legal fiction irrespective of whether such child was born before or after the 1976 amendment, or whether a formal decree of nullity was obtained. Under the statutory framework, such children are deemed to be legitimate offspring of their parents and are brought within the fold of recognized legal heirs.

Harmonisation With Hindu Succession Act And Section 3(1)(j)

Child Of Void Marriage Falls Within Legitimate Kinship

Addressing the interaction between the two family law enactments, the bench emphasized that statutory legitimacy conferred under Section 16 of the HMA must be read directly into the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The court reiterated that such a child falls within the ambit of the explanation "related by legitimate kinship" under Section 3(1)(j) of the HSA and cannot be treated as an illegitimate child for the purposes of the proviso to that section.

The court reiterated that while Section 16(3) of the HMA restricts the property rights of such children exclusively to the property of their parents, such property encompasses the parent's undivided share in Mitakshara coparcenary property once ascertained through the mechanism of notional partition.

Notional Partition Under Section 6(3) Governs Devolution

The bench underscored that Section 6(3) of the Hindu Succession Act mandates the devolution of a deceased male Hindu's interest in joint family property by intestate or testamentary succession rather than by survivorship. The law introduces a statutory fiction that assumes a partition took place immediately prior to the coparcener's death to ascertain his specific share.

"Once the share of the deceased in property that would have been allotted to him if a partition had taken place immediately before his death is ascertained, his heirs including the children who have been conferred with legitimacy under Section 16 of the HMA 1955, will be entitled to their share in the property which would have been allotted to the deceased upon the notional partition, if it had taken place."

Mathematical Computation Of Respective Shares

Turning to the undisputed factual matrix of the case, the High Court observed that late Agasara Hanumanthappa held an undivided half share in the ancestral suit schedule property during his lifetime, with the remaining half share belonging to his son, the appellant. Upon Hanumanthappa's death intestate, his 50% notional share had to be divided equally between his legitimate son and his daughter born from the second marriage.

The bench held that both the trial court and the First Appellate Court were fully justified in determining that the daughter was entitled to a 1/4th share in the total suit schedule property, leaving the appellant with his own half share plus the inherited 1/4th share, totaling a 3/4th share.

Absence Of Prayer Precludes Direction For Instrument Cancellation

Equities In Partition Protect Bonafide Alienations

The High Court approved the First Appellate Court's decision to delete the trial court's direction ordering the cancellation of the registered sale deeds under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act and Section 132 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, holding that no such relief was ever prayed for by the plaintiffs.

The court affirmed that the First Appellate Court had correctly applied the equitable principles of partition by directing that the alienated lands measuring 5 acres be allotted toward the appellant's legitimate 3/4th undivided share, thereby protecting the purchasers without infringing upon the plaintiff's decreed 1/4th share.

Finding no infirmity in the concurrent factual findings or the legal principles applied by the courts below, the bench held that no substantial question of law arose under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Karnataka High Court dismissed the regular second appeal, affirming that children born of void marriages are legally entitled to inherit their legitimate share in the deceased father's notional coparcenary share under Section 16 of the HMA and Section 6 of the HSA. The judgment reinforces the mandate of the Supreme Court in Revansiddappa, ensuring equal inheritance rights for such children out of parental property.

Date of Decision: 08 October 2026