Children Born from Void Marriages Can Inherit Ancestral Property, But Not as Coparceners: Supreme Court Clarifies Section 16 HMA

Introduction

Can a child born from a void or voidable marriage inherit ancestral property? 

This question has long occupied Indian courts because it sits at the intersection of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA). While Section 16 of the HMA declares children born from such marriages to be legitimate, the scope of their inheritance rights remained uncertain for decades. Specifically, courts were divided on whether legitimacy entitled these children to claim a share in ancestral or coparcenary property, or whether their rights were confined to the self-acquired property of their parents. 

The Supreme Court settled this controversy in Revanasiddappa & Anr. v. Mallikarjun & Ors., delivering a judgment that harmonises the HMA with the HSA while balancing the social objective of removing the stigma of illegitimacy against the traditional principles governing Mitakshara coparcenary. 

The decision makes one principle clear: although children born from void or voidable marriages do not become coparceners by birth, they cannot be denied a meaningful right to inherit their parent’s share in ancestral property. The ruling is therefore an important development in Hindu succession law and has significant implications for inheritance disputes, partition suits, family settlements, and estate planning. 

Section 16 HMA and the Legal Controversy

Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act was introduced to ensure that children are not prejudiced merely because the marriage of their parents is declared void or voidable. It recognises such children as legitimate and removes the legal disability historically attached to their birth. 

However, Section 16(3) limits their rights to the “property of the parents” and expressly excludes rights in the property of any other person. The provision does not clarify whether this expression includes a parent’s interest in ancestral or coparcenary property, giving rise to years of conflicting judicial interpretation. 

Earlier Supreme Court decisions, including Jinia Keotin v. Kumar Sitaram Manjhi, Neelamma v. Sarojamma, and Bharatha Matha v. R. Vijaya Renganathan, adopted a restrictive approach and held that children legitimised under Section 16 could inherit only the self-acquired property of their parents. This interpretation effectively denied them any claim to ancestral property, even though Parliament had recognised them as legitimate. 

Over time, this view attracted criticism for undermining the very purpose of Section 16. If the legislature intended to eliminate the disadvantages arising from an invalid marriage, restricting inheritance rights solely because of the nature of the parents’ relationship appeared inconsistent with that objective. The conflicting decisions ultimately led the issue to be referred to a larger Bench of the Supreme Court. 

The Supreme Court’s Decision

In Revanasiddappa, the Supreme Court rejected both extreme interpretations. It held that legitimacy under Section 16 neither confers unrestricted rights in ancestral property nor limits inheritance only to self-acquired assets. 

The Court first distinguished legitimacy from coparcenary status. Under Mitakshara law, a coparcener acquires an interest in joint family property by birth and enjoys rights such as seeking partition during the lifetime of other coparceners. Section 16 of the HMA, however, merely declares the child to be legitimate; it does not amend the statutory framework governing coparcenary under the Hindu Succession Act. 

The Court noted that Parliament expressly amended Section 6 of the HSA in 2005 to confer coparcenary rights upon daughters. No similar amendment was enacted for children legitimised under Section 16. Consequently, courts cannot infer coparcenary rights where the legislature has consciously chosen not to create them. 

At the same time, the Court observed that interpreting Section 16 as confining inheritance only to self-acquired property would render the protection granted by Parliament largely ineffective. Such an approach would perpetuate the very disadvantage that the provision sought to eliminate. 

The Supreme Court therefore adopted a harmonious interpretation of the two statutes, recognising that while legitimised children are not coparceners by birth, they are nevertheless entitled to inherit the property that legally devolves from their parents under the Hindu Succession Act. 

Harmonising the Hindu Marriage Act and the Hindu Succession Act

The Supreme Court resolved the issue by reading the HMA and the HSA together rather than in isolation. 

Under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, when a Mitakshara coparcener dies, the law first determines the share that the deceased would have received in the joint family property had a partition taken place immediately before death. This statutory mechanism, commonly referred to as notional partition, converts the deceased’s interest in the coparcenary into an identifiable share that forms part of their estate. 

The Court held that this crystallised share constitutes the “property of the parent” for the purposes of Section 16(3) of the HMA. Consequently, a child legitimised under Section 16 is entitled to inherit that share through succession. However, the child does not acquire an interest in the coparcenary during the parent’s lifetime, nor can they claim partition as a coparcener. 

This interpretation strikes a balance between the two statutes. It preserves the traditional framework of Mitakshara coparcenary while ensuring that the legitimacy conferred by Section 16 has substantive legal consequences. Importantly, the Court clarified that the rights of other coparceners remain unaffected during the lifetime of the parent, as the legitimised child’s entitlement arises only after succession opens. 

In doing so, the Supreme Court departed from the narrow interpretation adopted in earlier decisions, which had effectively confined inheritance rights to self-acquired property. The Court recognised that such an approach was unsupported by the language of Section 16 and diluted the social purpose underlying the provision. 

Practical Implications

The ruling has important consequences for succession planning and inheritance disputes involving Hindu joint family property. 

First, it settles a long-standing legal controversy by confirming that children born from void or voidable marriages cannot be excluded from inheriting solely because of the circumstances of their birth. While they do not become coparceners, they are entitled to succeed to the deceased parent’s share in ancestral property in accordance with the Hindu Succession Act. 

Secondly, the judgment is likely to influence partition suits, probate proceedings, family settlements and estate planning. Families and legal practitioners must now account for the rights of children legitimised under Section 16 while identifying legal heirs and distributing assets. Wills and succession plans that ignore these rights may invite future disputes. 

The decision also reinforces an important principle of statutory interpretation. Rather than allowing one statute to override another, the Court harmonised both enactments so that each continues to operate within its respective field. The HMA determines the child’s legal status, while the HSA governs how property devolves upon death. 

Although the judgment provides substantial clarity, one issue remains unresolved. The Supreme Court did not examine whether denying coparcenary status to children born from void marriages could be challenged on constitutional grounds under Article 14. As equality jurisprudence continues to evolve, this question may arise in future litigation. 

Conclusion

The decision in Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun marks a significant development in Hindu succession law by bringing certainty to an issue that had remained unsettled for decades. The Supreme Court has clarified that legitimacy under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act does not confer coparcenary rights, but neither is it an empty declaration. Children born from void or voidable marriages are entitled to inherit their parent’s share in ancestral property once that share devolves under the Hindu Succession Act. 

The judgment reflects a balanced approach that advances the legislative objective of protecting children from the consequences of an invalid marriage without altering the statutory scheme governing Mitakshara coparcenary. By harmonising the HMA and the HSA, the Court has ensured that legitimacy translates into meaningful inheritance rights while preserving the rights of existing coparceners. 

For practitioners, the ruling serves as an important precedent in succession disputes and underscores the need to carefully evaluate inheritance rights while advising on partition, testamentary succession, family arrangements and estate planning. As Hindu succession law continues to evolve, Revanasiddappa will remain the leading authority on the property rights of children legitimised under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 

Last Updated on 17 July, 2026