Married sisters win share in father’s properties

The Karnataka High Court has ruled in favour of two married sisters by rejecting their brothers’ claim that government granted land can’t be shared with them. The Karnataka High Court decided that Hindu Succession Act takes priority over the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, allowing married Hindu daughters to get a share of their father’s land that was granted to him by the state under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.Also read: Grandson got 3.11 bigha of Delhi land and other properties via Will, family members objected to this; HC grants probate of Will to grandson, know whyWhy did the brothers deny their sisters share in the father’s land?Under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, Mr Shivappa (the father) received land from the state government. Shivappa died on December 3, 2010 and was survived by his wife, two married daughters and two sons, Basavaraj and Mahadevappa. After Shivappa’s death, all family members held the land together without dividing it.Trouble started when Shivappa’s two married daughters asked for a 1/5th share of each piece of land their father received from the government. Basavaraj and Mahadevappa didn’t want to give any piece of land to their married sisters, causing the dispute to reach the court.Also read: Father bought 5-bigha land in elder brother’s name, other brothers claimed it was joint family land; M.P. High Court rules in elder brother’s favour, here's whyBasavaraj and Mahadevappa submitted arguments to the court arguing that their father’s lands were neither ancestral nor were they joint family properties. Rather they were tenanted lands given on grant to their father by the government. Basavaraj and Mahadevappa explained that their father (Shivappa) had filed form no. 7 before the Land Tribunal, Savanur, Karnataka, and the government had accepted his form and granted the lands to him. So, Basavaraj and Mahadevappa argued that after Shivappa’s death, they inherited those lands as his legal heirs.Moreover, Basavaraj and Mahadevappa also told the court that on June 15, 2006, their married sisters signed a Hakku bitta patra in the presence of elders whereby both of them relinquished their claim over Shivappa’s granted lands.On September 24, 2026, Basavaraj and Mahadevappa lost the case in the Karnataka High Court.Also read: Sister’s husband claimed he got his father-in-law's land via oral gift and sold it but her brothers objected; Madras HC rules in brothers' favour for this reasonWhy did the brothers lost the case?Sunayana Basu Mallik, Partner at King Stubb and Kasiva, said to ET Wealth Online: The daughters won because the Karnataka High Court followed settled rulings that a married daughter can share in land granted by the land tribunal, as the Hindu Succession Act overrides the Land Reforms Act on succession. The brothers could not displace the finding that the property remained joint or show any reason to depart from that position.According to Mallik, the only real defence in this case was that the land had been tenanted and was later granted to the family’s predecessors by the Land Tribunal under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, and so the daughters could have no share in it. The relationship between the parties was never in dispute, and both sides claimed the land by inheritance through their common ancestor, Shivappa.However, the Karnataka High Court treated the legal position as settled by relying on a coordinate bench ruling in Smt. Mallawwa Laxman Yadahalli v. Siddappa Mallappa Khavatakoppa, which in turn followed the Supreme Court’s decision in N. Padmamma v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy.Mallik says: "The high court held that a married daughter is also entitled to a share in land granted by the land tribunal, and that the Hindu Succession Act overrides the Land Reforms Act on the question of succession."Also read: Sisters demanded 1/3 share in parents’ lands, citing Hindu Succession Law, but brother won the case in Madras HC; know whyThe high court also noted that a daughter can claim her share once it is shown that the property continues to be joint, and the trial court and first appellate court had both found in the daughters’ favour on the facts. However, the brothers placed no material on record to persuade the court to take a different view.Mallik says: "So, the daughters won because the grant-land argument had already been rejected in earlier rulings and the appellants could not displace the finding that the property remained joint. The second appeal was dismissed, and the 1/7th share awarded to each daughter by the trial court stands."Also read: Grandmother gifted 2.5-acre land to son’s second wife, who sold it; granddaughter challenges sale claiming it to be ancestral land, but loses case in the High Court for this reasonKarnataka High Court discussionJustice B. Muralidhara Pai of Karnataka High Court held that the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act override the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and the latter does not govern the issue of succession.A similar view was taken by the Karnataka High Court in the Case of Vishnu and Others Vs Smt. Buddavva and others reported in RSA No.100608/2019.However, Basavaraj and Mahadevappa did not place any proof for taking a different view on the legal position regarding the rights of the daughters for claiming their share in the tenanted lands and their right to inheritance in the properties of their father.In the Har Naraini Devi’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with Section 50(a) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and the effect of the deletion of Section 4(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.In Smt. Mallavva Laxman Yadahalli’s case, the co-ordinate Bench of the Karnataka High Court considered the legal principles laid down in Har Naraini Devi’s case and proceeded to hold that the principles laid down therein do not apply to the question of deciding the right of a married daughter to inherit the property acquired by the father through the grant of occupancy right.Karnataka High Court said: “Now it is a well settled legal position that the daughter has a right to claim share in property, once it is proved that the property continues to be joint.”For foregoing reasons, the substantial question of law framed on 31.01.2024 is answered in the affirmative.