- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28160 RSA No. 2594 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2594 OF 2011 (DEC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT PUTTAMADAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, D/O LATE CHIKKAMADAIAH SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS 1(a) BHYRA, S/O LATE SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.4513, VINAYAKA, BEHIND FTS, KYATHAMRANAHALLI, MYSORE. 2. SMT CHIKKAHONNAMMA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, D/O LATE CHIKKAMADAIAH, R/OF NO.4513, VINQAYAKA,BEHIND FTS, KYATYHAMARANAHALLI MYSORE. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI K M SANATH KUMARA, ADVOCATE APPEAL AGAINST APPELLANT NO.2 STANDS DISMISSED AS ABATED) AND: 1. SMT DEVAMMA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS W/O LATE SAKAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LRS 1(a) SMT HEMA, W/O NAGESHA, MAJOR, R Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28160 RSA No. 2594 of 2011 NO.724, BEHIND BASAVANAGUDI ROAD, K.N.PURA LAYOUT, MYSURU - 570019. 1(b) SMT SUMITHRA, W/O NATARAJ, MAJOR, NO.725, BEHIND BASAVANAGUDI ROAD, K.N.PURA LAYOUT, MYSURU - 570019. 1(c) SMT YASHODHA, W/O RAJU, MAJOR, NO.673, BEHIND BASAVANAGUDI ROAD, K.N.PURA LAYOUT, MYSURU - 570019. 1(d) SMT NEELU, W/O BASAPPA, MAJOR, BEHIND BASAVANAGUDI ROAD, K.N.PURA LAYOUT, MYSURU - 570019. 1(e) LAKSHMI, D/O LATE SAKAIAH, MAJOR (ABATED) 1(f) KUMARI, D/O LATE SAKAIAH, MAJOR, R1(d) AND (f) ARE R/AT 11TH CROSS, ASWATHA KATTER CROSS ROAD, KYATHMARANAHALLY, MYSURU - 570019 (NOTE: THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 ARE ALSO LRS OF THE DECEASED RESPONDENT NO.1 ALONG WITH R1(a) AND R1(f) 2. SRI S MADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O LATE SAKAIAH. 3. SRI S RAMESHA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, S/O LATE SAKAIAH, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28160 RSA No. 2594 of 2011 4. SRI SREEKANTA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O LATE JAVARIAH, 5. SRI KRISHNA, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O LATE JAVARIAH 6. SMT SUMITRA, W/O LATE MUDDUMADU, DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF LATE JAVARAIAH, AGED 45 YEARS, 7. SMT MAHADEVAMMA, AGED 49 YEARS, D/O LATE JAVARAIAH, W/O LATE MAHADEVU. 8. SMT SHIVAMMA, AGED 39 YEARS, D/O LATE JAVARAIAH 9. SMT SHANTHAMMA, D/O LATE JAVARAIAH, W/O GOVINDAIAH @ GOVINDA NAIKA AGED 37 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO.84, HULIYAMMA'S TEMPLE KYATHAMARANAHALLI, MYSORE. 10. NAZEER AHAMED, MAJOR, SHARIFF TEA HOUSE, SHANTHINAGAR, MYSORE. 11. SARDAR, FIRE WOOD DEPOT, 1ST CROSS, SHANTHINAGAR, MYSORE. 12. SRI EKBAL, MAJOR, 1ST CROSS, SHANTHINAGAR, MYSORE. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28160 RSA No. 2594 of 2011 13. AHAMED SHERIFF, MAJOR NO.1995, 1ST STAGE, MAHADEVAPURA MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS, SHANTHINAGAR, MYSORE. 14. SMT HASEENA BANU, MAJOR, W/O KHALEEL, 2ND CROSS, SHANTHINAGAR, MYSORE. 15. AMEERJAN, MAJOR, NO.178 AND 178/4, 2ND CROSS, SHANTHINAGAR, MYSORE. 16. SRI SANNAMADU, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O LATE CHIKKAMADAIAH, NO.4513, VINAYAKA, BEHIND FTS, KYATHAMARANAHALLI, MYSORE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI N NANJUNDASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A TO F) R2 & R3, SMT SUKANYA H D, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R9, V/O/DT 03.04.2012 NOTICE TO R10, R11, R13 & R15 ARE H/S V/O/DT 26.11.2019 NOTICE TO R1(A&C) ARE H/S V/O/DT 4.07.2025 APPEAL AGAINST R16 R1(E) STANDS DISMISSED AS ABATED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 5.8.2011 PASSED IN R.A NO.794/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSORE, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.7.2009 PASSED IN O.S.NO.671/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) MYSORE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28160 RSA No. 2594 of 2011 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is arising from a divergent finding in a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and possession. 2. The admitted genealogy is as under: Chikkamadaiah 3. Chikkamadaiah was the propositus. He had two wives, namely Siddamma and Chikkamadamma. His first wife Siddamma died in 1942. After her death, Siddamma (W1) died on 18.05.1942 Chikkamadamma (W2) died on 31.01.2002 Sannamadu D1 Puttamadamma D2 Chikkahonnamma D3 K.Javaraiah died on 13.06.1985-Ex.P4 Sannamadamma (W) Muddumadu died Sumithra (W) P3 Sreekanth P1 Krishna P2 Mahadevamma P4 Shivamma P5 Shanthamma P6 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28160 RSA No. 2594 of 2011 Chikkamadaiah married Chikkamadamma. Chikkamadaiah, the propositus died in 1948, leaving behind a son K.Javaraiah from his first wife, and a son Sannamadu and two daughters Puttamadamma and Chikkahonnamma from second wife. 4. Chikkamadamma the second wife of the propositus filed a suit in O.S.No.2041/1991, contending that the defendants in the said suit have encroached upon the portion of the suit property. During the pendency of the suit, Chikkamadamma, the plaintiff died. Her two daughters and son were brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased Chikkamadamma. 5. Later, Dasappa claiming to be the general power of attorney holder of legal representatives of Chikkamadamma entered into a settlement with the defendants in the said suit. As per the terms of the settlement, the plaintiffs, who are the legal representatives of Chikkamadamma, admitted the ownership of the defendants over the said suit, who claimed to have - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28160 RSA No. 2594 of 2011 purchased the property from Chikkamadamma. It is relevant to note that said sale deed is signed by Sannamadau the son of Chikkamadamma. 6. Suit in O.S.No.671/2004, is by the grandchildren of Siddamma, first wife of Chikkamadaiah, challenging the compromise in O.S. No. 2041/1991. Suit is filed on the premise that Dasappa was not the power of attorney holder and said Dasappa had no authority to enter into the settlement on behalf of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.671/2004. 7. In O.S.No.671/2004, the son of Chikkamadamma was arrayed as defendant No.1 and purchasers were arrayed as defendants No.4 to 6. Defendant No.1 did not file written statement. 8. Trial Court held that there was no power of attorney in favour of Dasappa who signed the compromise petition in O.S. No.2041/1991; consequently suit is decreed in part. Compromise recorded in O.S.No.2041/1991 on 16.08.2004 is held to be not binding on the shares of the plaintiffs. Trial Court awarded 1/5th share to the plaintiffs. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28160 RSA No. 2594 of 2011 The Trial Court has also declared the shares of the children from the second wife Chikkamadamma. 9. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, defendants No.4 to 6, the purchasers from Chikkamadamma and her son, filed First Appeal in R.A. No.794/2009. The plaintiffs also filed a cross-objection claiming 1/2 share as they were awarded 1/5th share. 10. Before First Appellate Court, the plaintiffs who are the grandchildren of the propositus from his first wife Siddamma, and defendants No.4 to 6, the purchasers from Chikkamadamma and her son entered into a compromise. Said compromise petition was opposed by the daughters from second wife. 11. First Appellate Court has accepted the compromise and disposed of the appeal in terms of the settlement arrived at between the aforementioned parties. Consequent to the settlement, the suit is dismissed. 12. First Appellate Court rejected the objection to the compromise filed by the daughters from the second wife. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28160 RSA No. 2594 of 2011 First Appellate Court held that the daughters of Chikkamadamma did not inherit any property from their father, Chikkamadaiah who died in 1948. 13. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the daughters from second wife namely defendants No.2 and 3 are before this Court. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants raised the following contentions: (a) Section 8 of Mysore Hindu Law Women's Rights Act, 1933 ('Act of 1933') recognizes the right of the female and unmarried daughters, and First Appellate Court ignored Section 8 of the Act, 1933 and erroneously held that the daughters from the second wife are not entitled to share. (b) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ('Act of 1956') is amended in the year 2005. The daughters are given the status of a coparcener and the Apex Court has held that the amended Section 6 of the Act of 1956 has retrospective effect. So far there no partition in the family as such - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28160 RSA No. 2594 of 2011 the daughters are entitled to share in the properties of propositus Chikkamadaih. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would raise the following contentions: (a) Section 4 of the Act of 1933 provides for preferential order of succession. Since the son of the coparcener excludes the widow and other sharers enumerated in Section 4, the daughters from second wife, even if second marriage is valid, do not inherit any right in the property. (b) Amended Section 6 of the Act of 1956 does not come to the aid of the appellants, as succession has opened in 1948 after the death of Chikkamadaiah the propositus. 16. Following substantial questions of law would arise for consideration: - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28160 RSA No. 2594 of 2011 (a) Whether the daughter of a male Hindu would inherit the property of the father under Section 4 of the Act of 1933, if the male Hindu is survived by a son?. (b) Whether daughter of a coparcener, under Section 8 of Act of 1933 inherit the property of a deceased coparcener, if the coparcener has died before the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, survived by a son? (c) Whether the daughter of a coparcener can claim equal share in the coparcenery property under amended Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, if the succession has opened in favour of a son, before the commencement of said Act of 1956? 17. Section 4 of the Act of 1933 deals with inheritance. Said provision enumerates the members of the family, who inherit the property of male Hindu dying intestate. Relevant portion of Section 4(1) of Act of 1933 reads as under: 4(1): The succession to a Hindu male dying intestate shall, in the first place, vest in the members of the family of the propositus mentioned below, and in the following order:- - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28160 RSA No. 2594 of 2011 (i) the male issue to the third generation; (ii) the widow; (iii) daughters; xxxxxx (emphasis supplied) 18. The expression, “and in the following order” would suggest that the relatives of the male Hindu dying intestate, mentioned in the top, will exclude all other relatives mentioned next in the list. First in the list in Section 4(1) of Act of 1933 are male issues to the third generation. Second in the list is a widow, and the third in the list is daughter. The rest of the list is not relevant for the adjudication of this case. 19. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that Chikkamadaiah's first wife died in 1942 and Chikkamadaiah, died in 1948. When the propositus died he had a son by name K.Javaraiah from first wife and son Sannamadu from second wife. The estate of Chikkamadaiah would devolve on K.Javaraiah, the son from first wife, and Sannamadu, the son - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28160 RSA No. 2594 of 2011 from second wife. Thus, two daughters from second marriage, Puttamadamma and Chikkahonnamma, did not inherit any right as they were excluded from inheritance because of two sons of Chikkamadaiah. 20. Though the learned counsel for the appellants would urge that under Section 8 of the Act of 1933, the daughters are also entitled to the share, this Court is of the view that Section 8 comes into play when the partition takes places among the sharers. Section 8(1)(a) of the Act of 1933 has no application in the present case as the partition did not take place during the life time of propositus. After the death of the propositus in 1948, under Section 4(1) of Act of 1933 the son from the first wife and the son from the second wife of the propositus inherited the property to the exclusion of the daughters. Thus, daughters from second wife though the second marriage was valid, did not inherit any share in the property of the propositus. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28160 RSA No. 2594 of 2011 21. Next question is, “Whether the daughters can claim share in the said property in view of Section 6 of Act of 1956 as amended by Act of 2005?” 22. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force with effect from 17.06.1956. Section 6 of the said Act provided for succession/ devolution of right in the coparcenary property held by a Hindu male who dies after the commencement of the Act of 1956. And the said provision provided for a notional partition under certain situation enumerated in the provision and a share allotted to the male Hindu in the said notional partition would devolve upon the daughters along with other Class I heirs of the said male Hindu dying intestate. 23. Relevant portion of Section 6 of the Act of 1956 prior to its amendment before 2005 reads as under: 6. Devolution of interest in coparcenary property - When a male Hindu dies after the commencement of this Act, having at the time of his death an interest in a Mitakshara coparcenery property, his interest in the property shall devolve by - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28160 RSA No. 2594 of 2011 survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenary and not in accordance with this Act: Provided that , if the deceased had left him surviving a female relative specified in Class I of the Schedule or a male relative specified in that class who claims through such relative, the interest of the Mitakahsara 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 purpose of this section for the interest of a Hindu Mitakashara coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if the partition of the property had taken place immediately before his death, irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not? Explanation-2 - XXX (Emphasis supplied) 24. The expression "when a male Hindu dies after the commencement of this Act" makes it abundantly clear that Section 6 of Act of 1956, before its amendment was prospective in operation. The Act of 1956 is a substantive law. Generally, the substantive law is prospective in - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28160 RSA No. 2594 of 2011 operation unless it is specifically made retrospective or the provisions of the Act indicate that the Act is having a retrospective effect. 25. Act of 1956 when enacted, conferred right on the daughters, along with other Class I heirs, in respect of a coparcenary property, after the demise of the father. Till 1956 daughters were excluded from inheritance in the coparcenary property by male heirs. However, even in 1956, daughters were not treated on par with the male issues when it comes to succession of coparcenary property. To remove the inequality in the Act of 1956, Section 6 is amended to confer status to the daughter on par with the son. Thus, Section 6 of the Act of 1956 is amended conferring the status of a coparcener to the daughter. Said amended Section 6 is held to be retroactive subject to certain exceptions, by the Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma1. 1 2019(6) SCC 164 - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28160 RSA No. 2594 of 2011 26. The Act of 1956 is prospective in operation as it did not seek to alter the rights vested before the commencement of Act of 1956. Section 6 even before and after the amendment did not seek to alter the rights which vested before the commencement of the Act of 1956. As a result, if the succession has opened before 1956, vesting right in the property to the exclusion of a daughter, or daughters then such daughter or daughters cannot claim equal share in the property by taking shelter under amended Section 6 of Act of 1956. 27. It is already noticed that propositus Chikkamadaiah died in the year 1948. Thus, the succession opened in the year 1948. Under the law prevailing then, two sons of propositus inherited the property to the exclusion of other children of Chikkamadaiah, the propositus. Thus, the right is vested in two sons of the propositus who died in the year 1948. The Act of 1956 does not seek to alter the vested right which accrued to the person before the Act of 1956 which came into effect in 1956. The vested right is sought to be altered by way of an amendment in the year 2005 in - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28160 RSA No. 2594 of 2011 terms of amended Section 6. Amended Section 6 does not indicate that the right vested before the commencement of the Act of 1956 is also altered. 28. This being the position, the appellants cannot contend that the amended Section 6 of the Act of 1956 confers right in their favour since their brothers had inherited the property before the commencement of Act of 1956. 29. This being the position, this Court is of the view that the amended Section 6 of the Act of 1956 does not apply to the facts of the case. 30. Hence, the substantial questions of law are answered against the appellants and in favour of the respondents. 31. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. 32. Pending applications if any, does not survive for consideration. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP-List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24