US-based daughter goes to court against parents, seeking share in family land; Karnataka HC rejects her claim; here’s why

When Smt Usha from Bengaluru married Doctor Swamy in 1979, she relocated to Illinois, USA to be with him. This move meant she left behind her family’s properties in India. Her family lived in Bengaluru and managed the joint family assets.

Despite owning several lands and properties in and around Bengaluru, there had never been any dispute within the family regarding these properties. However, on December 19, 2011, without her knowledge, her family sold 10 acres of joint family land to Mr M. Narayanaswamy, son of late Muniyappa, by a sale deed. This created a rift between her and her family.

Usha identified four properties (A,B,C,D) as ancestral and demanded that these properties be partitioned and her rightful share be given to her. Her family disagreed with her demands and said that the properties that she had identified are her father’s self-occupied assets, and not ancestral property as she believed.


Usha disagreed with her father and said that property ‘A’ is her grandfather’s property which he gave to her father and accordingly her father got his name recorded as Khatedar from the year 1982 to 2013. According to her, the income generated by property ‘A’ was used to buy property ’B’.

Regarding property A, she contended that after the Karnataka government granted a quarrying licence in the land, her parents carried out quarrying activities there and generated substantial wealth. She claimed that property B was bought from the income earned through these quarrying operations.

Regarding properties C and D, she alleged that her father had inherited them from her grandfather. Property C is an agricultural land located at Badavanavrathna Kavalu, while property D is located in Pattabhirama Nagar, Bengaluru.

So, Usha decided to take legal action against her family for the partition of the properties on the ground that her parents over a period of time used the income and proceeds from the ancestral inherited properties to buy other properties and so she should get a share in these properties.

However, she lost the case in Karnataka High Court as the court ruled that the properties which she claims as ancestral are indeed self-occupied by her father, According to the law, a person only inherits a property from one of their three immediate paternal ancestors, and their sons, grandsons and great grandsons acquire an interest in it by birth or under Section 6 after the amendment in the Hindu Succession Act made on September 9, 2005.

The Karnataka High Court said that Usha failed to prove that the properties in question were coparcenery properties and that she acquired rights in those properties by being a member of the joint Hindu family.

Also read: Children can not have birthright to father’s self-acquired property even if he got it via gift, Will, family arrangement or partition in this case; Know what Mitakshara Hindu law says

Family tree

The family lineage goes back to the late Muniyappa, who was the father of Sri M. Venkataswamy (defendant No.1) and the Grandfather of the Plaintiff (Usha) and Respondent No. 3, Sri M. Venkataswamy (defendant No.1), is the son of late Muniyappa, and defendant No.2, Smt. Jayamma, is the wife of defendant No.1.

The plaintiff, Smt. Usha N. Swamy, and defendant No.3, Smt. Shyla Venkataswamy, are the daughters of defendant Nos.1 and 2. During the ongoing proceedings, Smt. Roopasri, another daughter of late M. Venkataswamy, was impleaded as respondent No.4.

The family tree is as follows:

Source: Karnataka High Court judgement

Keep reading to know why she lost the case in Karnataka High Court.

Why did she lose the case?

Asha Kiran Sharma, Partner at King Stubb and Kasiva said to ET Wealth Online: The Karnataka High Court dismissed Smt. Swamy's claim because she failed to prove that the properties in question were ancestral or coparcenary properties.

The evidence on record, including admissions by her own witness, indicated that the properties had originally been purchased by her grandfather and were his self-acquired properties. Subsequently, they were allotted to her father under a family partition/arrangement.

Also read: Nephew allegedly demands share in 5.5-acre ancestral land or Rs 1.5 crore; uncle’s family files FIR against him; SC quashes criminal case for this reason

The Karnataka High Court held that once self-acquired properties are distributed by the owner among his children, the recipients generally hold them as their separate properties unless there is evidence showing a contrary intention or that the property retained a coparcenary character.
Importantly, the Court did not deny the daughter's rights as a coparcener under the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act.

Rather, the Karnataka High Court held that those rights arise only in coparcenary property. Since the properties were found to be the father's separate properties and not ancestral/coparcenary assets, the daughter (Smt Usha) could not seek partition as a matter of birthright.

Sharma says: "This judgment reinforces a fundamental distinction in Hindu succession law: a daughter's coparcenary rights are equal to those of a son, but those rights extend only to coparcenary property. Before seeking partition, a claimant must first establish the ancestral or coparcenary nature of the property. Mere familial lineage is not enough."

Karnataka high court judgement summary

A summary of the judgement is as follows:

If property is self-occupied then it is not joint Hindu family property

The high court said that under the amended Section 6, in a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara Law, the daughter of a coparcener becomes a coparcener in her own right by birth in the same manner as the son and will have the same rights in the coparcenary properties as that of the son.

The high court said that thus if a property is joint Hindu family property, then only a coparcener shall acquire the right by birth and not otherwise. If the property is a self acquired property of a member of the family, it would not be treated as joint hindu family property and the question of interest of a family member in that property as a coparcener does not arise.

In the present case, Usha’s grandfather had acquired 107 acres of land in Kannayana Agrahara Village, Bangalore South and when he partitioned the land, a portion of it (Property A) was given to Usha’s father. Usha’s uncle testified in court and confirmed this partition made by their father in Usha’s father’s favour.

Thus the high court said that it is a fact that property 'A' is the absolute property of Usha’s father.

Regarding property C and D, the high court ruled that both of them are Usha’s father’s absolute property and not ancestral since they were her grandfather’s and came to her father by way of partition.

The high court said that Usha had argued that properties 'A', 'C' and 'D' were self acquired properties of her grandfather. This means that the grandfather had the absolute right of disposition over these properties. So, the high court pointed out that once her grandfather had given these properties to his two sons and daughter, they became the absolute owners of the properties that came to their share and these were not ancestral property with coparcenery character.

Only when a person inherits a property from any one of his three immediate paternal ancestors do they acquire an interest in it by birth

The high court said that Usha herself argued that Property B was purchased by her father using income from property A. However, this means Property B is her father’s self-acquired property since Property A is his property which he got from her grandfather via partition.

An extract of the high court reasoning is as follows: “These properties did not come to the plaintiff's father by inheritance. Only when a person inherits a property from any one of his three immediate paternal ancestors, his sons, grandsons and great grandsons, acquire an interest in it by birth or under Section 6 after amendment w.e.f. 09.09.2005.”

Usha was never in possession of these properties since she lived in USA since 1979
The high court said that there was no unity of ownership and possession between all members of the family as Usha was never in possession of the property, which became the self- acquired properties of her father.

The high court said: “In the absence of unity of possession of the plaintiff along with other family members i.e. parents and defendant No.3/sister. The plaintiff did not acquire an interest by birth in the properties, which are the individual/separate properties of her father.”

The high court also said that it is well settled that under Mitakshara law, the father has the absolute right of disposition over his self-acquired property, to which no exception can be taken by male/female descendants.