Supreme Court ने Hindu Succession Act के तहत बेटी के उत्तराधिकार अधिकारों को स्पष्ट किया – 2026

<h2>Supreme Court Clarifies Daughter’s Inheritance Rights Under Hindu Succession Act – 2026</h2> <p>The <strong>Supreme Court</strong> on <strong>15 May 2026</strong> upheld that the 2005 amendment granting <span class="key-term" data-definition="Coparcenary rights – Rights of a Hindu coparcener (including daughters after the 2005 amendment) to a share in ancestral property by birth. (GS2: Polity)">coparcenary rights</span> to daughters does not curtail their independent entitlement as <span class="key-term" data-definition="Class I heir – A person who, under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, inherits the entire estate of a deceased Hindu male who dies intestate. (GS2: Polity)">Class I heirs</span> under the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Hindu Succession Act – The principal legislation governing inheritance among Hindus in India. (GS2: Polity)">Hindu Succession Act</span>. A partition executed only among sons cannot defeat a daughter’s share in her father’s property.</p> <h3>Key Developments</h3> <ul> <li>The Karnataka High Court’s dismissal of the daughters’ suit under Order VII Rule 11(d) was set aside.</li> <li>The Court held that <span class="key-term" data-definition="Section 6(5) – Saving clause of the Hindu Succession Act that protects partitions made before 20 December 2004 from the 2005 amendment. (GS2: Polity)">Section 6(5)</span> is a saving clause, not a jurisdictional bar, and does not extinguish a daughter’s pre‑existing right under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Section 8 – Provides that a Hindu male’s property devolves on his Class I heirs when he dies intestate. (GS2: Polity)">Section 8</span>. <li>The principle of <span class="key-term" data-definition="Res judicata – Legal doctrine that a matter already adjudicated cannot be re‑litigated. (GS4: Ethics/Polity)">res judicata</span> barred a second application seeking rejection of the plaint, even though filed by a different party.</li> <li>The Court emphasized that disputes over the validity of a pre‑2004 partition must be examined at trial, not dismissed at the threshold.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <p>• The deceased, <strong>B.M. Seenappa</strong>, died intestate on <strong>6 March 1985</strong>, leaving a widow, three daughters and four sons.<br> • Sons allegedly effected an oral partition in 1985 and a registered deed in 2000, excluding the daughters.<br> • Daughters filed a suit in 2007 claiming a <strong>1/8th</strong> share each as Class I heirs.<br> • The High Court relied on Section 6(5) to protect the 2000 deed, but the Supreme Court rejected that view.</p> <h3>UPSC Relevance</h3> <p>The judgment illustrates the interaction between statutory amendments and existing rights, a frequent theme in <span class="key-term" data-definition="GS2: Polity – The paper covering constitutional law, governance, and statutory interpretation. (GS2)">GS 2</span>. Understanding the distinction between a <span class="key-term" data-definition="Saving clause –