Married Daughter Cannot Be Deprived of Her Right in Agricultural Land Merely Because She Is Married: Karnataka High Court Restores Daughter's Share in Occupancy Rights Land

“Hindu Succession Act will prevail over the definition of ‘family’ in Karnataka Land Reforms Act”, In a judgment High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad Bench emphatically held that a married daughter is entitled to a share in agricultural land granted under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, and such entitlement cannot be denied based on the narrow definition of “family” under that statute. Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar declared the earlier dismissal of the daughter’s partition suit erroneous and allowed her rightful claim under the Hindu Succession Act, observing that “succession and inheritance must be governed by personal law, not tenancy law definitions.”

“Definitions under tenancy law cannot override substantive rights of succession under Hindu law” — High Court affirms married daughter’s inheritance

The appellant, Smt. Mallawwa (now deceased, represented through her legal representatives), had filed a suit seeking partition and separate possession of agricultural lands held by her deceased father, Basagouda. She claimed that these lands, having been granted under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, formed part of the joint family property and that she was entitled to a legitimate share. The trial court, however, dismissed the suit in 2017, holding that a married daughter is not part of the ‘family’ as per Section 2(12) of the KLR Act, and that the claim was barred by limitation.

The defendants, led by Siddappa (adopted son of Basagouda), resisted the suit on the basis of a registered adoption deed and subsequent sale transactions in favour of third parties. The daughter’s claim was rejected on the premise that she could not claim a share in lands granted under the Land Reforms Act.

In a strongly reasoned judgment, the High Court overturned the findings of the trial court and held that "marriage does not sever a daughter’s right to inherit her father's property, including agricultural land.”

Addressing the core legal conflict between the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and the Hindu Succession Act, the Court made a critical observation:

“Merely because under the Land Reforms Act, the definition of ‘family’ excludes a married daughter, the same cannot be read into succession law… The personal law governing Hindus i.e., Hindu Succession Act, 1956, must prevail.”

The Court held that while the Land Reforms Act may define "family" narrowly for purposes of tenancy and occupancy grants, that “cannot be invoked to deny the legitimate rights of succession guaranteed under Hindu law.” Referring to N. Padmamma v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy, and Vidya Devi v. Prem Prakash, the Court clarified that the source of the land (granted or otherwise) does not affect the heirship rights conferred by succession law.

“Adopted Son Shares Equally—Does Not Exclude Biological Daughters” — Court Affirms Equal Heirship Among All Legal Heirs

The Court upheld the validity of the registered adoption deed executed in favour of Defendant No.1 (Siddappa), noting that “the adoption is duly proved through documentary and oral evidence and is not in dispute.” However, it drew a sharp legal distinction between adoption and exclusion of other heirs:

“Merely being adopted does not entitle the defendant to deny the rightful claims of the plaintiff and her sister, who are Class I heirs under the Hindu Succession Act.”

It held that the adopted son and both daughters were entitled to equal shares, concluding that “the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share by metes and bounds.”

On the issue of third-party purchasers (defendants 6 to 8 and 12), who claimed to have bought portions of the land, the Court clarified:

“The purchasers themselves admitted to purchasing only the 1/3rd share of Defendant No.1… Their remedy lies only against the seller, and they cannot infringe upon the rights of other co-owners.”

Setting aside the trial court’s decision dated 18 August 2017, the High Court ruled that the daughter’s claim was not barred by limitation and that her exclusion from partition was erroneous. It allowed the appeal partly and decreed the suit in her favour to the extent of a 1/3rd share, directing division of property accordingly.

The Court further held that no costs would be awarded, and the purchaser-defendants were to pursue their legal remedies against the seller, Defendant No.1, without disturbing the shares of the other heirs.

This verdict is a robust reaffirmation of gender-equal inheritance rights, particularly in the context of agricultural lands—an area where patriarchal interpretations often deny daughters their rightful entitlements. By reiterating that “definitions under the Land Reforms Act cannot govern succession,” the Court upheld the constitutional promise of equality and the supremacy of personal law in matters of inheritance.

Date of Decision: 14 July 2025