Introduction 

This landmark Supreme Court judgment, delivered by a three-judge bench led by the then Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, addressed the critical intersection between Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Court resolved the conflicting interpretations regarding property rights of children born out of invalid marriages in Hindu joint family property governed by Mitakshara law. The judgment establishes that while such children are entitled to inherit their parents' share through notional partition, they cannot be treated as coparceners by birth in the Hindu Undivided Family. 

Facts of the Case  

• The case arose from a reference against the two-judge bench judgment in Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun (2011), which had held that children born out of void/voidable marriages are entitled to inherit their parents' properties, whether self-acquired or ancestral. 
• The reference was made by a three-judge bench led by the then Chief Justice DY Chandrachud on 1st September, 2023. 
• The primary dispute centered on the interpretation of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which confers legitimacy to children born out of invalid marriages. 
• Section 16(3) specifically states that such children are entitled to inherit only their parents' property and have no right over other coparcenary shares. 
• The case involved conflicting views from earlier Supreme Court decisions in Bharatha Matha & another v. R. Vijaya Renganathan & others (2010) and Jinia Keotin v. Kumar Sitaram (2003). 
• These earlier judgments had taken the view that children born out of void marriages were not entitled to claim inheritance of ancestral coparcenary property and were entitled only to self-acquired property of their father. 
• The Revanasiddappa (2011) judgment had differed with this view, necessitating the reference to a larger bench. 
• The case specifically dealt with Hindu joint family properties governed by Hindu Mitakshara law. 
• The issue required harmonization of provisions between the Hindu Marriage Act and the Hindu Succession Act. 

Issues Involved 

• Whether children born out of void/voidable marriages can claim rights in ancestral coparcenary property or only in self-acquired property of parents. 
• In the context of Hindu Mitakshara law, when can property be held to be that of the parent in a Hindu Undivided Family. 
• Whether legitimacy conferred under Section 16 HMA makes such children coparceners by birth in the Hindu joint family. 
• How to determine the share of a deceased coparcener for inheritance purposes under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. 
• How to reconcile the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act with the Hindu Succession Act regarding property rights. 

Court's Observations 

• The Court emphasized that conferring legitimacy under Section 16 HMA does not automatically grant coparcenary rights, as coparcenary property depends on 'survivorship' and not 'succession'. 
• The Court established that for ascertaining the interest of a deceased Hindu Mitakshara coparcener, the law mandates assumption of a partition immediately prior to death between the deceased and other coparceners. 
• The Court held that children born out of invalid marriages are entitled to inherit the share that would have been allotted to their parents on notional partition, but cannot claim rights in properties of other coparceners. 
• The court Clarified that provisions of the Hindu Succession Act must be harmonized with Section 16(3) HMA, which limits children's rights to parents' property only. 
• The Court recognized that the legislation aims to protect innocent children while maintaining the rights of other coparceners in the joint family. 
• The Court provided a detailed illustration involving four brothers to demonstrate how notional partition would work in practice. 
• Acknowledged that the Hindu Marriage Act is beneficial legislation intended to confer social status of legitimacy on children who would otherwise be treated as illegitimate. 
• Recognized the need to balance the rights of children born out of invalid marriages with the rights of other innocent coparceners. 
• Upheld that a reasonable classification exists between children born out of valid and invalid marriages regarding property rights. 
• Emphasized that a plain and literal interpretation of Section 16 should be adopted to safeguard the intent of the legislation. 

Conclusion 

This landmark judgment provides much-needed clarity on the property rights of children born out of invalid marriages in Hindu joint family property. The Supreme Court established a balanced approach that recognizes the legitimacy of such children while protecting the coparcenary rights of other family members. By clarifying that these children are entitled to their parents' share through notional partition but cannot claim coparcenary rights, the Court has harmonized the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act with the Hindu Succession Act. The judgment's practical illustration and clear guidelines will serve as valuable precedent for future cases involving property disputes in Hindu joint families. The Court's emphasis on the protective intent of the legislation while maintaining the integrity of the coparcenary system demonstrates a nuanced understanding of both the letter and spirit of Hindu personal law.