A Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court held in June 2026 that property a grandfather self-acquired, and which fell to the father in a family partition, remains the father's separate and individual property — it does not take on the character of ancestral property in his hands, and a daughter therefore has no coparcenary right in it by birth. A digest of the holding and the settled line of Hindu-law authority it rests on.
On 15 May 2026, a two-judge bench held that Section 6(5) of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 is a narrow saving clause that protects pre-20 December 2004 partitions from the retroactive coparcenary amendment of 2005, but does not bar a partition suit and does not displace daughters' independent Section 8 rights — which accrued on the intestate's death and pre-existed the 2005 amendment. An oral partition among sons alone cannot defeat the daughters' succession share, and a second Order VII Rule 11 CPC application on identical grounds is barred by res judicata.
On 18 May 2026, a two-judge bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih clarified that Section 6(5) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — which protects pre-2004 partitions from the retroactive coparcenary amendment of 2005 — does not create a jurisdictional bar to a partition suit and does not extinguish the independent statutory succession rights of Class I heirs under Section 8. The judgment reinforces the doctrinal architecture that Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) had established and clarifies the relationship between the coparcenary line and the intestate succession line under the Hindu Succession Act.