Son fights for full share in father’s property after stepmother transfers it to daughter, who sells it; SC rejects his claim

The Supreme Court recently dismissed a son’s claim to fully inherit his late father’s property in this specific property dispute case, upholding his stepmother’s right to the property, which she gifted to her daughter.

The property dispute case involved Mr Ganapati from Terdal village in Karnataka. According to the submission to the court, Ganpati’s father, Mr Gangaram, died in 1949, and his stepmother, Mrs Kashibai, passed away in 1986. However, before her death, Kashibai executed a Will giving the said properties to her daughter Shakuntala (Ganapati’s stepsister).

When Shakuntala got the properties, she applied for the mutation records and got them updated in her name. On updating the mutation records, Ganapati came to know about the ownership change of the properties; he objected to it and filed a court case.


Ganapati, in the lawsuit, asserted full ownership of two of his late father’s (Gangaram’s) properties on the ground that as a Hindu male following Mitakshara Hindu law, his father’s property belongs to him only. In middle of the court case, Shakuntala sold one of the properties to Mr Baburao.

If you want to know why Kashibai was able to inherit and transfer the properties to her daughter, read the Hindu Women’s Right to Properties Act, 1937, along with Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937, was applied here because Gangaram died in 1949, which is about seven years before the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

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 reason

The Supreme Court, on September 22, 2026, upheld its judgement in Kashibai favour, saying she acquired a limited interest in the properties under the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, 1937. Her limited interest was expanded into absolute ownership by Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, with the coming into existence of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Therefore, the Supreme Court said that Kashibai was entitled to execute a Will in favour of her daughter Shakuntala (Ganapati’s stepsister), and thus the subsequent sale of one of the properties by Shakuntala to Baburao is legally intact and permissible.

The properties under dispute consist of two houses situated at Terdal Village, Jamkhandi Taluka, Bagalkot District, Karnataka. A third house remained with Ganapati until he sold it via a registered sale deed dated December 3, 1974.

If you are interested in reading more about how Ganapati lost the case and what this means for Hindu males following Mitakshara Hindu law, then read below.

Family tree:

Source: Supreme Court order

Also read: Can a married daughter inherit government-allotted land? HC protects her rights under the Hindu Succession Act

Why the son lost the case?

Ashish Bhakta, Founding Partner, ANB Legal said to ET Wealth Online: The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether Kashibai, the second wife and widow of Gangaram, had acquired a legally enforceable interest in Gangaram’s interest in the joint-family property when he died in 1949 and, if so, whether that interest was subsequently enlarged into absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 even though there was no formally proved partition between Kashibai and Ganapati.

The Supreme Court answered this in the affirmative and held that Kashibai, as Gangaram’s widow, acquired her husband’s interest by statutory devolution under the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, 1937, subject to the limitations applicable to that interest. With the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act in 1956, that limited interest was enlarged into absolute ownership under Section 14(1). Importantly, the Court held that a formal partition between Kashibai and Ganapati was not a essential condition for this transformation.

Also read: Mother wins property battle against son and daughter-in-law: Delhi HC orders them to vacate her house

Bhakta explains the reason provided by the Supreme Court which led to the loss for the son:

• Gangaram died in 1949, before the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act. He left behind his son Ganapati, through his first wife, and his second wife, Kashibai, who had two daughters, Shakuntala and Kamalavva through Gangaram. Ganapati claimed that, after Gangaram’s demise, he exclusively succeeded to his father's estate under Hindu law and became the absolute owner of the suit properties.
• Ganapati’s case was that, since Gangaram died in 1949, before the Hindu Succession Act came into force, he succeeded to the estate as the sole surviving male coparcener under the prevailing Mitakshara Hindu law. On this basis, he claimed that he became the absolute owner to the exclusion of Kashibai and her daughters.
• The Supreme Court observed that a Hindu widow, stepping into her husband's shoes, holds the properties by satisfying the requirement of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. Even assuming that the alleged oral partition had not been proved, the necessary corollary in law under the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, 1937, read with Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act remained intact and unaffected.
• The Supreme Court stated that the consistent view is to recognise the right of a Hindu widow as blossoming into an absolute right, except in cases falling under Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act It specifically held that Kashibai held her husband's interest subject to the restrictions of Section 3(2) of the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, 1937, and Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 takes away the effect of Section 3(2) of the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, 1937.
• The Supreme Court further explained that Section 3(2) confers on the widow, on the principle of devolution and subject to the limitation in Section 3(3) of the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, 1937, the right of her husband. The Supreme Court clarified that devolution of property is not confined to survivorship or inheritance; it can also take place through an Act of the Legislature.
• Accordingly, Kashibai had a right under Section 3(1) of the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, 1937 and by operation of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 she became the absolute owner of the property devolved in her favour upon the demise of Gangaram and Kashibai was not a sine qua non for continuing to enjoy the right as an independent or absolute owner of the property left behind by Gangaram.

Siddhi Dama, Associate, ANB Legal said to ET Wealth Online that the Supreme Court further observed that, even assuming that partition had not occurred and the property remained undivided, the shares in the coparcenary are subject to fluctuation but not to denial of a right. Therefore, the absence of a formal partition could not defeat Kashibai’s right.

Dama says: "Once the property became the absolute property of Kashibai, she acquired the right to dispose of it as per her will and wish. She accordingly executed a registered Will dated October 13, 1984 in favour of her daughter, Shakuntala."

On the basis of the Will, Shakuntala became entitled to the property and subsequently executed a registered Sale Deed in favour of Baburao.

Supreme Court discussion

Interplay and expansion between Section 3(2) of the Act, 1937, and Section 14(1) of the Act, 1956

The Supreme Court explained in the judgement that this case needs to be seen by using the interplay and expansion between Section 3(2) of the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, 1937 and Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

The Supreme Court said that their court in the case of V. Tulasamma held that a widow’s right to maintenance is a pre-existing legal right, and thus, her limited interest under the 1937 Act transforms into absolute ownership under the 1956 Act.

In the case of Raghubar Singh, the Supreme Court had held that a widow’s right to maintenance arises under Shastric Hindu law and is not merely a statutory imprimatur under the Act, 1937. Consequently, instruments recognising this pre-existing right attract Section 14(1), which confers absolute ownership, rather than restricting her estate under Section 14(2).

Kashibai did not need to prove an oral partition before her rights could become absolute

The Supreme Court explained that Section 3(2) confers on the widow, on the principle of devolution and subject to the limitation in Section 3(3) of the Act, 1937, the right of her husband, so this may be termed a confirmation by the Legislature of a right for a person to obtain the property of another on the latter’s death in certain circumstances.

Thus, the Supreme Court ruled that it is not that the property will devolve on another only by survivorship or inheritance; it can also be through an Act of the Legislature.

So going by this logic, the Supreme Court explained that Kashibai got her first right under Section 3(1) of the Act, 1937, albeit in a limited way. However, once Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, became operational, Kashibai became an absolute owner of the property devolved in her favour upon the demise of her husband (Gangaram).

Thus, the Supreme Court explained that an oral partition or any partition between Gangaram and Kashibai is not necessary in this case for continuing to enjoy her right as an independent or absolute owner of the property left behind by Gangaram.

The Supreme Court said that even assuming, without deciding the said argument, that a partition has not occurred in the undivided property, the shares in the coparcenary are subject to fluctuation but not to the denial of a right.

Thus, the Supreme Court ruled that the civil appeal fails, and Ganapati’s case is dismissed.