2009 (7) TMI 1379 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the marriage between K Doddananjundaiah and Yashodamma.
2. Inheritance rights of Dinesh under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
3. Applicability of Sections 6 and 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Summary:

Issue 1: Validity of the marriage between K Doddananjundaiah and Yashodamma
The appellants contended that Yashodamma was not validly married to K Doddananjundaiah. The trial court, relying on admissions by Neelamma and Kamalamma, birth certificates, and a settlement deed, concluded that Yashodamma was legally married to K Doddananjundaiah. The High Court upheld this finding. The Supreme Court noted that despite discrepancies in the "lagna patrika," the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts sufficiently established the marriage.

Issue 2: Inheritance rights of Dinesh under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956
The appellants argued that Dinesh, born after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was not a coparcener and should inherit under Section 8, not Section 6. The respondents contended that Dinesh, being a coparcener, inherited under Section 6. The Supreme Court held that Dinesh, born after the Act, would inherit as per Section 8, not as a coparcener, due to the legal fiction created by Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, legitimizing children of void marriages.

Issue 3: Applicability of Sections 6 and 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956
The Supreme Court clarified that the property in the hands of K Doddananjundaiah, allotted in a 1948 partition, would be his separate property and not coparcenary property. The Court emphasized that Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, would apply, making Dinesh and the daughters equal heirs. The Court cited precedents, including *Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur And Others v. Chander Sen And Others* and *Sheela Devi & Ors. V. Lal Chand & Anr.*, to support this interpretation.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that Dinesh would not be a coparcener and the appellants would inherit a 1/3rd share in the properties, not 1/10th as determined by the lower courts. The appeals were allowed with no costs.