Dharwad bench of the Karnataka high court asks centre to protect class one heirs rights under amended Hindu Succession Act | Bengaluru News

Bengaluru: The Dharwad bench of the Karnataka high court has observed that the Union govt, through the ministry of law and parliamentary affairs, must consider taking appropriate steps to address gaps in the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act to safeguard the rights of Class I heirs such as widows, mothers and widows of predeceased sons.A division bench comprising Justices R Devdas and B Muralidhara Pai said the amended provision should expressly refer to Class I heirs listed in the Schedule to avoid ambiguity and ensure their rights are adequately protected. The observations were made while hearing two Regular First Appeals arising from a land dispute in Koppal district involving the inherited properties of one Mudakanagouda.The bench noted that prior to the 2005 amendment, the law provided for a notional partition that ensured a share to widows and mothers of the deceased along with sons and daughters. However, it pointed out that due to inadvertent omission, the amended Section 6 failed to specifically include other Class I heirs — such as widows, mothers and widows of predeceased sons—whose rights flowed from the unamended provision.The court observed while Section 6(3) provides for devolution of a Hindu’s interest in joint family property by testamentary or intestate succession rather than survivorship, this alone does not sufficiently protect the rights of other Class I heirs unless they are expressly referred to in the amended provision. The bench therefore called upon the Centre to consider recasting the provision.In the case at hand, the court held that Sharanavva, who was issueless and claimed to be the first wife of Mudakanagouda, was entitled to a half share in the properties at Hirekoppa village, as she fell under the Class I category of legal heirs. The remaining half was directed to be equally divided among Mudakanagouda’s three children born to Nimbavva, with each child receiving a one-fourth share.On the claim of Eshwar, who asserted that he had purchased some of the lands from Mudakanagouda, the bench said he could pursue his remedies from the share declared in favour of Sharanavva.