CourtKutchehry

Case Summary: Revanasiddappa & Anr. v. Mallikarjun & Ors. (2023)

Case Stats

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, CJI; J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ. (Three‑Judge Bench)
Citations: (2023) 09 SC CK 0059
Case Nos.: Civil Appeal No. 2844 of 2011; 7318 of 2014; 4398 of 2019; 2312 of 2021; SLP(C) Nos. 81, 14176‑77 of 2016; 27834 of 2017; 23397‑98 of 2018; 1573‑74 of 2021
Date of Decision: 01‑09‑2023
Disposition: Appeals disposed; reference answered—expanded recognition of rights of children under Section 16 HMA

[Judgment Source] https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/t/2369477-revanasiddappa-an-vs-mallikarjun?s=&refine_search=&s_acts=

Key Prior / Referred Judgments

Jinia Keotin v. Kumar Sitaram Manjhi, (2003) 1 SCC 730
Neelamma v. Sarojamma, (2006) 9 SCC 612
Bharatha Matha v. R. Vijaya Renganathan, (2010) 11 SCC 483
Parayankandiyal Eravath Kalliani Amma v. K. Devi, (1996) 4 SCC 76
Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, (2011) 11 SCC 1 (reference doubting earlier view)

Facts of the Case

A two‑Judge Bench (2011) doubted earlier rulings restricting inheritance rights of children born from void/voidable marriages and referred questions to a larger Bench.
Core question: scope of legitimacy and property rights conferred by Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), especially vis‑à‑vis ancestral/coparcenary property under the Hindu Succession Act (HSA).
Multiple connected appeals raised claims by children born from marriages void under Section 11 or voidable under Section 12 HMA, seeking shares in parents’ property.

Law Points / Issues Raised

Whether children deemed ‘legitimate’ under Section 16(1)–(2) HMA have rights in the property of their parents limited only to self‑acquired property or extend also to the parents’ share in ancestral/coparcenary property.
Proper construction of Section 16(3) HMA—scope of the phrase ‘property of any person, other than the parents’.
Interplay with the HSA, 1956 (as amended), Mitakshara coparcenary concepts, and constitutional values under Article 14.

Acts / Provisions / Articles Referred

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Sections 5, 11, 12, 16(1)–(3).
Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Sections 6, 8–10, 15–16.
Constitution of India: Articles 14, 300A; Article 366(25) (definitions).
Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 494–495 (as background in some matters).

Obiter Dicta (Notable Observations)

Section 16 is a socially beneficial provision to remove the stigma of illegitimacy; interpretation must advance constitutional equality and individual dignity.
The expression ‘property of any person, other than the parents’ in Section 16(3) bars succession to collateral relatives, not to the parents’ own property—whether self‑acquired or their share in joint family property.

Ratio Decidendi

Children deemed legitimate under Section 16(1)–(2) HMA are entitled to succeed to the ‘property of their parents’—this includes self‑acquired property and the share which would devolve upon the parent in ancestral/coparcenary property.
Such children do not, by birth, become coparceners; their right is confined to inheritance through the parent—i.e., to the extent of the parent’s share upon partition or on the parent’s death.
Earlier views in Jinia Keotin, Neelamma, and Bharatha Matha are overruled/limited to the extent they denied rights in the parents’ share of ancestral/coparcenary property.

Final Ruling / Disposition

Reference answered: Section 16 confers legitimacy and inheritable rights against the parents’ property, not merely limited to self‑acquired assets.
Claims to property of persons other than the parents remain barred under Section 16(3) HMA.
Appeals disposed with directions to apply the above principles to the facts of the connected cases.

Key Paragraph Numbers / Roadmap for Quick Reference

1–3: Reference background; prior conflicting two Judge views.
4–12: Statutory framework; evolution of Section 16; Law Commission Report; Kalliani Amma.
Conclusion section (end of judgment): Operative holdings on scope of ‘property of parents’, coparcenary, and effect on prior case law.

Summary (One‑Paragraph)

The Supreme Court (three‑Judge Bench) clarified that children deemed legitimate under Section 16 HMA—i.e., born from void or voidable marriages—can inherit not only the self‑acquired property of their parents but also the share that devolves upon a parent from ancestral/coparcenary property. They are not coparceners by birth and cannot claim in their own right against the joint family; their entitlement is confined to the parents’ share, accessible on partition or upon the parent’s death. The Court harmonized Section 16 with the HSA and constitutional equality, limiting earlier rulings to the extent inconsistent with this position.