- 1 - RFA NO.100014 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100014 OF 2021 BETWEEN: 1. PRAKASH TIMMAPPA HEGDE A/A: 59 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. BISLAKOPPA, TAL: SIRSI, U.K DISTRICT-581402. 2. CHANDRAMATI W/O. GAJANAN HEGDE A/A: 70 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. KURSE COMPOUND, BANAVASI ROAD, SIRSI, U.K DISTRICT-581402. 3. JAHNAVI W/O. RAMACHANDRA HEGDE A/A: 68 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD, R/O. MUNDIGESAR, TAL: SIRSI, U.K DISTRICT-581402. 4. SUMANGALA W/O. SUBRAY BHAT A/A: 60 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KURSE COMPOUND, BANAVASI ROAD, SIRSI, U.K DISTRICT-581402. 5. SUMANA W/O. SHRIKANT HEGDE A/A: 57 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD, R/AT. BALEGADDE, TAL: SIRSI, U.K DISTRICT-581402. 6. VIDYA D/O. GAJANAN HEGDE A/A: 50 YEARS, SERVICE, R - 2 - RFA NO.100014 of 2021 R/O. KURSE COMPOUND, BANAVASI ROAD, SIRSI, U.K DISTRICT-581402. 7. SHRIKANT VENKATRAMANA HEGDE A/A: 60 YEARS, SERVICE, R/O. BALEGADDE, TAL: SIRSI, U.K DISTRICT-581402. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. A.P.HEGDE JANMANE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SUBRAY TIMMAPPA HEGDE A/A: 72 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. BISLAKOPPA, TAL: SIRSI, U.K DISTRICT-581402. 2. VENKATRAMAN TIMMAPPA HEGDE A/A: 63 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. MALALGAON, TAL: SIRSI, U.K DISTRICT-581402. ..RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 96 OF C.P.C., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.09.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.32/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SIRSI, DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 03.04.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA - 3 - RFA NO.100014 of 2021 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) The captioned appeal is by defendants No.3 to 9, who are assailing the preliminary decree granted in O.S.No.32/2015. The said judgment and decree is under challenge by these defendants. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. Before we examine the issue on hand, we deem it appropriate to cull out the family tree, which is as under: Timmappa Subray Hegde (Defendant No.1) (Died on 13-7-2017) Subhadra (Died on 2-8-2000) Subray Chandramati Jahnavai Venkatraman Sumangala Prakash Sumana (plaintiff) (Defendant (Defendant (Defendant (Defendant (Defendant (Def. No.4) No.5) No.2) No.6) No.3) No.7) Vidya (Def.No.8) Shrikant (D9) Sarojini Suresh Ashok (Died unmarried & issueless) (Died unmarried & issueless) (Died unmarried & issueless) - 4 - RFA NO.100014 of 2021 4. The facts leading to the case are that; Plaintiff, who is the elder son of Timmappa Hegde and Subhadra Hegde has instituted a suit for partition in O.S.No.32/2015. The plaintiff asserts that he along with defendants No.2 to 7 are the children of defendant No.1 and late Subhadra, who died on 02.08.2000. Defendant No.8 is the daughter of defendant No.4 and defendant No.9 is the husband of defendant No.7. Defendants No.4 to 7 are the daughters of defendant No.1. The plaintiff has specifically pleaded that defendant No.1-father had no authority to gift the property in favour of defendant No.3. He also questioned the subsequent gift deed dated 13.02.2002 executed by defendants No.4 and 7 in favour of defendants No.8 and 9. The plaintiff alleged that these are void and fraudulent documents. 5. The defendants on receipt of summons, tendered appearance. Defendants No.1, 3 and 5 filed written statement and claimed that the suit schedule properties are the self acquired properties of defendant No.1. Defendants alleged that item No.1 property was - 5 - RFA NO.100014 of 2021 purchased by defendant No.1 on 08.06.1960 from his independent earnings as defendant No.1 was running a grocery shop and never treated item No.1 property as joint family property. Insofar as item No.2 property is concerned, defendants claim that it is the self acquired property of Ashok, the youngest son of defendant No.1 and after his death, with the consent of mother, a mutation came to be effected with the consent of plaintiff and defendant No.2. Therefore, defendants claim that defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of item No.2 property. Defendants further contended that Subhadra has made a testamentary arrangement by executing Will on 02.07.1995, thereby bequeathing the property in favour of defendant No.1 and this fact is well within the knowledge of plaintiff. 6. The plaintiff and defendants to substantiate their respective claims have led in oral and documentary evidence. The trial Court after assessing oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit granting 1/7th share to the plaintiff in the suit schedule properties. - 6 - RFA NO.100014 of 2021 Similarly, defendants No.2 to 7 are also granted 1/7th share in the suit schedule properties. 7. In the captioned appeal, counsel appearing for appellant reiterating the grounds has raised question of law by citing the second explanation to Section 6B, which is the Karnataka State Amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity). Citing the second explanation, he would point out that after the death of Subhadra, who is the mother of plaintiff, defendant No.1-father would become the absolute owner as second explanation to Section 6B of the Act lays embargo that the legal heirs would not succeed and claim share by way of intestacy. He would further point out that though Section 6A of the Act is held to be repugnant, citing the judgment rendered by Division Bench in the case of Smt. Annapurnavva D/o Siddaramayya Kallayanavar Hiremath Vs Parvatevva W/o Parameshawrayya Karasthal and others1, he would vehemently argue and contend that 1 RFA No.100007/2014 C/w RFA No.100028/2014 (DD:-07.07.2021) - 7 - RFA NO.100014 of 2021 second explanation is dealt by Division Bench and in the light of law laid down by Division Bench, the plaintiff, who is separated son under registered partition deed, cannot claim a share by way of intestate succession on account of death of his mother Subhadra, who is the wife of defendant No.1. He would assert that all three sons were given separate shares at different points in time through registered partition deeds. The property in question was jointly owned by Defendant No.1 and his wife, Subhadra. Upon her death, her share devolved upon Defendant No.1 by way of survivorship, thereby making him the absolute owner of the property. As such, he has the legal authority to execute a gift deed in favour of the defendants through a registered instrument. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for plaintiff would point out that second explanation to Section 6B of the Act has no application to the case on hand. Referring to the provision to Section 6B of the Act, he would point out that a female Hindu in Section 6B of the Act, refers to a daughter and not to a wife. Therefore, he - 8 - RFA NO.100014 of 2021 would point out that on account of death of plaintiff’s mother-Subhadra, the right of inheritance is governed under Section 15 of the Act and not under Section 6B of the Act, as contended by learned counsel appearing for the defendants. 9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff and defendants. Perused the records. 10. We have given our anxious consideration to the oral and documentary evidence. 11. The following points would arise for consideration: i) Whether the plaintiffs suit seeking relief of partition and separate possession is hit by second explanation to Section 6B of the Act and therefore, preliminary decree drawn by the trial Court warrants interference at the hands of this Court ? ii) Whether second explanation to Section 6B has to be treated as void to the extent of repugnancy to Section 6 of - 9 - RFA NO.100014 of 2021 Hindu Succession Act in accordance with Article 254(1) of Indian Constitution? iii) Whether the finding of the trial court that the gift deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 on 24.11.2014 in respect of item No.1 is void ab initio on the ground that it is coparcenary property, is perverse and contrary to the documentary evidence, particularly Ex.P5—registered partition deed dated 15.03.1995,which clearly demonstrates final severance of the joint family status and allotment of the present suit schedule properties jointly to defendant No.1 and his wife Subhadra, thereby converting the nature of the property into separate property? iv) Whether the finding of the trial court that the gift deeds executed in favour of defendant Nos.4 and 7, as reflected in Exs.D4 and D6, are void, is also erroneous and perverse, particularly in light of the plaintiff’s admitted consent to the said gifts, and the fact that item No.2 of the suit schedule property, jointly allotted to defendant No.1 and - 10 - RFA NO.100014 of 2021 Subhadra under Ex.P5, has lost its character as coparcenary property post- partition, and hence is governed by the principles under the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act? FINDINGS ON POINT No.(i):- 12. Amended Section 6 of the Act and the Rights of a Daughter in joint family property; The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, introduced a significant change to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The amended provision conferred upon daughters equal coparcenary rights by birth in the ancestral property, placing them on par with sons. Daughters were thereby recognized as coparceners in the Hindu Joint Family governed by Mitakshara law, with the same rights and liabilities as sons in respect of the coparcenary property. 13. Whether word Hindu female used in Karnataka Amendment in Section 6B refers to daughter exclusively Or includes wife; - 11 - RFA NO.100014 of 2021 Karnataka Amendment – Section 6-B and Second explanation under the Hindu Succession (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1990, Section 6-B was inserted prior to the 2005 central amendment and reads as follows: “6-B. Interest to devolve by survivorship on death:- When a female Hindu dies after the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1990, having at the time of her death an interest in a Mitakshara coparcenary property, her interest in the property shall devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenary and not in accordance with this Act: Provided that if the deceased had left any child or child of a pre-deceased child, the interest of the deceased in the Mitakshara coparcenary property shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession as the case may be under this Act and not by survivorship. Explanation.--(1) For the purposes of this section the interest of female Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to her if a partition of the property had taken place immediately before her death, irrespective of whether she was entitled to claim partition or not. (2) Nothing contained in the proviso to this section shall be construed as enabling a person who, before the death of the deceased had separated himself or herself from the coparcenary, of any of his or her heirs to claim on intestacy a share in the interest referred to therein. 14. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the expression "Hindu female" as used in Section 6B - 12 - RFA NO.100014 of 2021 of the Hindu Succession Act, as amended by the Karnataka Amendment Act, 1990, ought to be construed broadly so as to include the wife of a male Hindu who is a member of a Mitakshara joint family. On this premise, it is contended that the second explanation to Section 6-B is directly applicable to the present case. It is further argued that the wife of a coparcener, being a Hindu female, should also be treated as having an interest in the coparcenary property upon the death of her husband, and therefore, her rights would be governed by the scheme of Section 6B. 15. Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff strongly refutes the interpretation placed by the defendants. He draws the attention of the Court to the express language and the legislative object underlying Section 6-B of the Hindu Succession Act, as introduced by the Karnataka Amendment Act, 1990. It is pointed out that the term "Hindu female" in the context of Section 6B is not intended to include the wife or widow of a male coparcener. Rather, the specific object of the Karnataka - 13 - RFA NO.100014 of 2021 Amendment was to confer coparcenary rights upon daughters of a coparcener, thereby enabling them to participate equally in the coparcenary property, just as sons do. 16. The learned counsel further submits that the second explanation to Section 6-B clearly carves out an exception only in respect of daughters of a coparcener who die intestate. It categorically states that the provision shall not apply to a daughter of a coparcener dying intestate after the commencement of the Amendment Act. Hence, it is evident that the benefit or exclusion under this section is available only in relation to daughters and not to wives or widows of coparceners. Accordingly, in the present case, on the death of Subhadra, the plaintiff’s mother and wife of a coparcener, the succession to her interest, if any, would fall for consideration under the general provisions of the Act, namely Section 15, and not under the special provision contained in Section 6-B. 17. The Karnataka Amendment Act, 1990, by introducing Section 6B into the Hindu Succession Act, - 14 - RFA NO.100014 of 2021 sought to address the historical gender inequality in Hindu joint family property rights by specifically recognizing and elevating the status of daughters in a Mitakshara coparcenary. Section 6B begins with a non-obstante clause, overriding the general rule of devolution under Section 6, and provides that when a female Hindu dies possessing an interest in a Mitakshara coparcenary property, such interest shall devolve by survivorship and not in accordance with the Act. However, the first proviso qualifies this by restoring the devolution through succession under the Act in cases where the deceased female Hindu had left behind any child or child of a predeceased child. 18. Significantly, the second explanation to Section 6-B explicitly states that the section shall not apply to a child of a coparcener dying intestate on or after the commencement of the Amendment Act. The underlying legislative intent is clear. Section 6-B was introduced to extend and protect the rights of daughters in coparcenary property, and the phrase "Hindu female" used therein - 15 - RFA NO.100014 of 2021 refers to such daughters who are coparceners by virtue of their birth in the family. The provision does not extend its applicability to the wife or widow of a coparcener, who traditionally does not hold a birthright in the coparcenary but may inherit an interest through succession or may be allotted equal share at par with Husband and sons, if parties are governed Bombay school of law. Therefore, the argument advanced by the defendant's counsel, seeking to bring within the ambit of Section 6-B the wife of a male Hindu coparcener, in the case on hand, wife of defendant no.1, is wholly misconceived and contrary to the express legislative scheme and object of the Karnataka Amendment. 19. Nature of the Property Retained by the Father and Mother Post Partition; The records indicate that the plaintiff’s father, who is the first defendant (D1), and his wife Subadra were jointly allotted the suit properties during a partition effected on 15.03.1995, as evidenced by document marked as Exhibit P5. The first defendant contends that following the demise - 16 - RFA NO.100014 of 2021 of Subadra, his wife and the mother of the plaintiff, the properties which had been jointly allotted to them should devolve entirely upon him by the principle of survivorship. defendant no.1 contends that, in such circumstances, there is no room for intestate succession. 20. However, this contention does not hold legal ground in light of the amended provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Post-amendment, the concept of survivorship has been abrogated with respect to the interest of a female or joint owner in a Hindu undivided family property. Accordingly, any interest held by Subadra in the joint property would not devolve by way of survivorship but rather must devolve through testamentary disposition or, in the absence thereof, by way of intestate succession as laid down under the Hindu Succession Act. 21. In the present case, since the suit properties were allotted jointly to Subadra and defendant No.1, Subadra held a definite share in the property at the time of her death. Consequently, her undivided half share - 17 - RFA NO.100014 of 2021 would devolve upon her legal heirs, not by survivorship, but under the scheme of intestate succession provided under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act. As such, the plaintiff, being a Class-I heir of Subadra, is entitled to succeed to his share in the said properties. 22. Once a partition is duly effected and documented through a registered partition deed, the status of the property changes fundamentally. Each coparceners’ share, whether that of the father or the sons, transforms from being part of the joint family property to their respective absolute property. In the same vein, if the wife received a share along with her husband through family arrangement or otherwise, such property becomes her absolute and separate estate though jointly held along with her husband. 23. In this scenario, the mother Subadra held her share of the property independently after the partition. This portion, thus, qualifies as her separate property under the meaning of Section 15 of the Act. Upon her death, intestate succession laws under Section 15 of the Act, - 18 - RFA NO.100014 of 2021 come into operation, and the said property does not revert to the joint family or coparcenary pool but devolves upon her legal heirs as per the statutory rules of succession. 24. Records reveal that plaintiff’s father/Defendant No.1 and his wife Subadra while effecting partition on 15.3.1995 evidenced at Ex.P5 were allotted the suit properties jointly. The first defendant contends that after death of wife Subardra, who is the mother of plaintiff, the properties which were allotted to his wife jointly will devolve upon him by way of survivorship and there is no scope for interstate succession. In view of amendment to Section 6, the devolution of Subadra’s interest will not devolve by way of survivorship but through testamentary arrangement or interstate succession as per provisions of Hindu Succession Act. In the case on hand since it is the wife’s joint share, the class-I heir’s right in Subadra’s half share is necessarily governed by Section 15 of Hindu Succession Act. 25. Applicability of Section 6B and Interpretation of Its Second Explanation; - 19 - RFA NO.100014 of 2021 The defendants have sought to rely on Section 6B of the Hindu Succession (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1990, to argue against the plaintiff’s claim. Section 6B, deals with the devolution of the interest of a female Hindu coparcener in coparcenary property, specifically addressing situations where such property devolves by survivorship upon the remaining members of the coparcenary. 26. However, the second explanation to Section 6-B has no relevance and bearing on the present case. It clearly stipulates that where a female Hindu dies leaving behind any child or the child of a pre-deceased child, the devolution of her interest shall not be by survivorship but rather through testamentary or intestate succession, as per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. 27. In the present case, the deceased mother is survived by her children, including the plaintiff. Therefore, by operation of Section 15, the property does not devolve by survivorship, and the defendants’ contention to that effect stands rejected. - 20 - RFA NO.100014 of 2021 28. The law is settled that the property of a Hindu female dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules laid down in Section 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) provides that such property shall devolve, firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any predeceased son or daughter) and the husband. 29. Given the fact that the mother’s estate, in the present case, qualifies as separate or self-acquired property and she died intestate, the rules under Section 15(1)(a) are applicable. Consequently, the plaintiff, being one of the sons and a legal heir, has an unquestionable right to claim a share in the mother’s estate. The legal position is clear that the defendants cannot exclude the plaintiff from succession on the basis of an inapplicable provision such as Section 6B, especially when the said section is overridden by its own proviso and when the mother’s share had already ceased to be part of any coparcenary. - 21 - RFA NO.100014 of 2021 30. In light of the above discussion, this Court holds that the plaintiff’s suit is maintainable and his claim is legally tenable. The share of the deceased mother in the property, having been her separate and absolute property, shall devolve equally upon all her legal heirs under Section 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 31. Thus, the properties held by both husband and wife post-partition are deemed to be their separate properties. Upon the death of the wife, her share must devolve upon her legal heirs under the scheme provided in Section 15, and not through survivorship. Accordingly, point No.(i) is answered in the ‘negative’. FINDING ON POINT NO.(ii): 32. Repugnancy between second explanation to Section 6B and the Amended Central Legislation; The constitutional validity and continued applicability of the second explanation to Section 6B of the Hindu Succession (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1990, merits a detailed examination in light of the substantive changes - 22 - RFA NO.100014 of 2021 brought about by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, at the central level. The amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, has brought about a radical transformation in the law relating to Hindu coparcenary rights by statutorily recognizing gender equality within the coparcenary structure. 33. Extract from Amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956; “On and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, in a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener shall— (a) by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son; (b) have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son; (c) be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenary property as that of a son.” 34. The amended provision completely does away with the doctrine of survivorship, which hitherto governed the devolution of coparcenary property, and replaces it - 23 - RFA NO.100014 of 2021 with the principle of intestate succession as laid out under the Act. The amendment also applies retrospectively, in the sense that it confers rights by birth, and the Supreme Court has further clarified in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma2 that the right of the daughter as a coparcener is not dependent upon the father being alive as on the date of the amendment. 35. The insertion of Section 6B and the accompanying second proviso by the Hindu Succession (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1990, represents a legislative intervention that, while initially progressive for its time, has become incongruous in light of the 2005 amendment to the central Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Section 6B, introduced by the Karnataka legislature well before the 2005 central amendment, sought to address the devolution of coparcenary property by making certain provisions for female heirs. Section 6-B and Second explanation under the Hindu Succession (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1990, was inserted prior to the 2005 2 (2019) 6 SCC 164 - 24 - RFA NO.100014 of 2021 central amendment. The second explanation specifically excludes daughters of coparceners from the survivorship devolution scheme if they die intestate, thereby suggesting the continuing relevance of survivorship in certain cases involving female coparceners. However, this stands in stark contradiction to the amended Section 6 of the central legislation, which unequivocally abolishes survivorship as a mode of devolution upon the death of a coparcener and accords daughters equal status as coparceners by birth. 36. Article 254 of the Constitution provides that in the event of a conflict between central and state legislation with respect to matters in the Concurrent List, the central legislation shall prevail to the extent of repugnancy, unless the state legislation has received the assent of the President and explicitly saves the conflicting provision. 37. In this context, the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, being a central legislation that comprehensively covers the field of devolution of interest in Mitakshara coparcenary property, supersedes - 25 - RFA NO.100014 of 2021 any inconsistent provisions under state law. The second explanation to Section 6B, by retaining elements of survivorship in cases involving female coparceners, contradicts the intention and letter of the central amendment, thereby rendering it repugnant. 38. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (supra) and subsequent decisions has firmly reinforced the notion that daughters must be treated as equal coparceners from birth, with no residual applicability of the doctrine of survivorship. As such, the legal space previously occupied by provisions like Section 6B of the Karnataka Amendment Act stands overridden. 39. Unless and until the second explanation to Section 6B is specifically preserved by Presidential assent after the 2005 amendment (which it is not), it must be treated as void to the extent of repugnancy, in accordance with Article 254(1) of the Constitution. Consequently, the second explanation to Section 6B has lost both its constitutional and legal efficacy in the post-2005 legal - 26 - RFA NO.100014 of 2021 regime, and any continued reliance upon it would be untenable. Accordingly, point No.(ii) is answered in the ‘affirmative’. FINDING ON POINT NOS. (iii) AND (iv): 40. In the light of the discussion and the conclusive findings recorded by this Court while answering Point No.1, it stands established that Ex.P5—registered partition deed dated 15.03.1995 marks a final and unequivocal severance of the joint family status among the Male members of the joint family. Pursuant to the said partition, the suit schedule properties, i.e., item Nos.1 and 2, were jointly allotted to defendant No.1 and his wife Subhadra. Consequently, the said properties ceased to be part of the coparcenary or joint family estate, and acquired the character of separate or joint tenancy property between husband and wife. 41. It is a settled principle of Hindu law that restrictions imposed upon a male coparcener in respect of alienation or gifting of coparcenary property do not survive - 27 - RFA NO.100014 of 2021 once the property ceases to be joint family property and becomes his separate property. The embargo on unilateral alienation by gift, which typically applies in cases where the property is ancestral or coparcenary in nature, has no application once a partition has taken place. Therefore, the argument that the gift deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 is invalid on the ground that the subject property is still coparcenary in nature is legally untenable and contrary to the contents of Ex.P5. 42. Insofar as item No.1 is concerned, the gift deed dated 24.11.2014 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 (Ex.D1) is to be held valid to the extent of the half share held by defendant No.1. Since the property was held jointly by defendant No.1 and Subhadra, each held a distinct and identifiable half share. Therefore, defendant No.1 was fully competent to gift his own share, and the gift cannot be said to be void ab initio merely because it purported to transfer the entire extent. The gift would be operative to the extent of his half share, and not beyond. - 28 - RFA NO.100014 of 2021 43. With respect to item No.2, the situation stands on even firmer footing. The gift deeds executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.4 and 7, as evidenced by Exs.D4 and D6 respectively, were made with the explicit and unequivocal consent of the plaintiff, which is admitted. Even in the absence of such consent, the legal position would remain the same post partition, the property ceased to be coparcenary in character and defendant No.1 was well within his rights to dispose of his undivided half share. Hence, these gift deeds are also valid to the extent of the half share of defendant No.1 in item No.2. 44. As the gifts are upheld to the extent of defendant No.1's share, the plaintiff would be entitled only to the remaining half share in item Nos.1 and 2, representing the interest of Subhadra, his deceased mother. In view of this conclusion, the question of examining the genuineness or validity of the Will set up by the defendants does not survive, as the gift deeds have already effectively alienated the share of defendant No.1. - 29 - RFA NO.100014 of 2021 Accordingly, Point Nos.(iii) and (iv) are answered in the ‘negative’. 45. Conclusions: (i) In view of the registered partition deed dated 15.03.1995 (Ex.P5), which effected a final severance among the coparceners, the suit schedule properties namely item Nos.1 and 2 jointly allotted to defendant No.1 and his wife Subhadra must be treated as separate properties. The concept of survivorship does not apply post partition, and following the 2005 amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, such jointly held properties cannot be regarded as coparcenary. Accordingly, the properties are to be treated as self- acquired or jointly owned separate properties. (ii) The trial court failed to appreciate that the suit schedule properties (item Nos.1 and 2) were jointly allotted to defendant No.1 and his wife Subhadra pursuant to a registered partition deed dated 15.03.1995 (Ex.P5). This document effected a complete and irrevocable - 30 - RFA NO.100014 of 2021 partition among the male coparceners, thereby severing the joint family status. Post-partition, the properties ceased to be part of the coparcenary estate and assumed the character of separate or jointly held property between the spouses. Consequently, coparcenary restrictions, including those relating to survivorship or alienation, no longer applied. (iii) The second explanation to Section 6-B of the Act, which excludes daughters of a coparcener dying intestate from the operation of the section, has no application in the present case. The expression "Hindu female" used in Section 6B refers to a daughter, not a wife or widow of a coparcener. Subhadra, being the wife of defendant No.1, is not covered by the exclusion in the second explanation. Therefore, upon her intestate death, succession to her estate must be governed under Section 15 of the Act. The reliance placed on Annapurnavva’s case (supra) by the defendants is inapplicable in light of the binding ratio in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma - 31 - RFA NO.100014 of 2021 (supra), which has clarified the scope of female inheritance and has overridden contrary interpretations. (iv) The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the defendants on the decision of the Division Bench in Smt. Annapurnavva’s case (supra) is, with due respect, misplaced and cannot be treated as laying down the applicable law in the present case. While the Division Bench has dealt with the scope of the second explanation to Section 6B of the Hindu Succession Act as amended by the Karnataka Amendment Act, 1990, and has held that a separated son cannot claim a share by way of intestate succession upon the death of his mother, the said interpretation must now be read subject to the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma (supra) has categorically held that the right of a daughter as a coparcener is by birth and is not dependent upon the existence or survival of the father or any subsequent partition. Importantly, the Apex Court - 32 - RFA NO.100014 of 2021 emphasized that the 2005 Amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act is declaratory in nature and has retrospective operation to the extent of conferring parity in coparcenary rights to daughters. The judgment reaffirms that statutory rights conferred under the amended Section 6 override contrary customary or judicial interpretations that predate it. Therefore, any proposition emerging from the Division Bench judgment in Annapurnavva (supra) which restricts inheritance through the lens of survivorship or disregards the independent rights of female Hindus in coparcenary property post-amendment, stands diluted and overridden by the ratio of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma’s case (supra). Accordingly, the contention that the plaintiff, being a son who separated earlier through a registered partition deed, cannot claim under intestate succession upon the death of his mother, Subhadra, must be rejected, especially when the said claim is anchored not in survivorship but under Section 15 of the Act, which continues to apply in full force to the estate of a Hindu female dying intestate. - 33 - RFA NO.100014 of 2021 (v) The gift deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 is valid to the extent of defendant No.1’s half share in item No.1. As the property ceased to be coparcenary following the 1995 partition and was held jointly by defendant No.1 and his wife Subhadra, each had an identifiable share. Defendant No.1 was legally competent to gift his undivided half share. The gift is void only to the extent it purports to transfer Subhadra’s share. (vi) The gift deeds executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.4 and 7 in respect of item No.2 (vide Exs.D4 and D6) are valid to the extent of defendant No.1’s half share. Plaintiff’s explicit and admitted consent further fortifies the validity of these transactions. The restriction on alienation of joint family property does not apply, as the property is no longer coparcenary. Subhadra’s half share remains unaffected and devolves by intestate succession. (vii) The trial court erred in questioning the validity of the gift deeds executed by defendant No.1 on the assumption that the properties continued to retain their - 34 - RFA NO.100014 of 2021 coparcenary character. Given that the properties were separate following partition, defendant No.1 was competent in law to gift his undivided half share. The gifts, though made unilaterally, are valid to the extent of his interest. With respect to item No.2, the gifts were further fortified by the admitted consent of the plaintiff, removing any residual doubt regarding their validity. (viii) The plaintiff is entitled to only a half share in each of the suit schedule properties, item Nos.1 and 2, corresponding to the share of his deceased mother Subhadra. The gift deeds executed by defendant No.1 are upheld to the extent of his half share in the respective properties. Consideration of the Will set up by the defendants is rendered unnecessary and infructuous in light of the limited extent to which the gift deeds have been upheld. 46. For the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following: - 35 - RFA NO.100014 of 2021 ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part; ii) The plaintiff is entitled for half share in Subhadra’s half share, i.e., 1/7th share in half share held by Subhadra, which works out to 1/14th share; iii) To this extent, the preliminary decree is modified; iv) Draw decree accordingly. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE AM Ct:vh