Question

When a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener, who has a child legitimised under section 16 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955, dies intestate, after the 2005 Amendment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, what is the legal mechanism that determines the child's share in the parent's interest in the coparcenary property?

• A. The Child becomes a coparcener by birth, and the entire coparcenary property is divided equally amongst all the coparceners.
• B. The parent's interest devolves by traditional rule of survivorship, and the section 16 child receives no share
• C. The parent's interest is first determined through a notional partition immediately before death under section 6 (3) of Hindu Succession Act 1956 and this determined share then devolves by intestate succession to all the deceased's children (including the section 16 child) under section 8/10 of Hindu Succession Act 1956.
• D. The share of section 16 child is limited to receiving maintenance from the joint family estate.
• A. Such a child is a coparcener
• B. Such a child is not a coparcener
• C. Such a child is a coparcener, and has the power to seek partition of coparcenary property
• D. Such a child is a coparcener, but does not have the power to seek partition of coparcenary property
• A. Only I is correct
• B. Only II is correct
• C. Both I and II are correct
• D. Both I and II are incorrect
• A. Such a child can ask for partition of coparcenary property
• B. Such a child can claim share in their own right in the undivided coparcenary property of his parents
• C. Such a child has rights only to self-acquired property of his parents
• D. Such a child cannot ask for partition of coparcenary property
• A. Such children are entitled to coparcenary rights in the ancestral property to their parents, equal to children born within a valid marriage
• B. Such children are entitled only to the self-acquired or separate property of their parents, and not to ancestral/coparcenary property
• C. Such children are entitled to inherit property only if no legitimate heirs exist from a valid marriage
• D. Such children have no rights in any property of the parents, whether self-acquired or ancestral

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The question asks for the process by which a child legitimized under Section 16 HMA can inherit a share in their parent's interest in a Mitakshara coparcenary property when the parent dies without a will after 2005.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The passage establishes that a Section 16 child has rights only in the "property of the parents," not in the coparcenary property as a whole. This means they are not coparceners by birth. So, how do they inherit? The mechanism is provided by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.


Notional Partition: When a male Hindu coparcener dies intestate, Section 6(3) of the Hindu Succession Act mandates a "notional partition." This means a partition is deemed to have taken place immediately before his death to ascertain his specific share in the coparcenary property.
Devolution of Share: This ascertained share is then treated as his separate property.
Intestate Succession: This separate property then devolves according to the rules of intestate succession under Section 8 of the Act to his Class I heirs, which includes all his children (legitimate, adopted, and those legitimized under Section 16 HMA).
This entire process is described perfectly in option (C). Option (A) is wrong because the passage states the child is not a coparcener. Option (B) is wrong because the rule of survivorship has been largely abrogated by the 2005 amendment in favor of succession. Option (D) is incorrect as the child is entitled to a share in the parent's property, not just maintenance.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The legal mechanism involves a notional partition to crystallize the parent's share, which then devolves by intestate succession to all heirs, including the Section 16 child.

Answer 2

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The question asks for the correct legal status of a child legitimized under Section 16 HMA, specifically whether they are a coparcener or not.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The passage from the Supreme Court's judgment in {Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun} is explicit on this point. It holds that:
"Holding that the consequence of legitimacy under sub-sections (1) or (2) of Section 16 is to place such an individual on an equal footing as a coparcener in the coparcenary would be contrary to the plain intendment of sub-section (3) of Section 16...".
This is a direct and unambiguous statement that a child legitimized under Section 16 is NOT a coparcener. Their rights are limited to the property of their parents only. Therefore, options (A), (C), and (D), all of which claim the child is a coparcener, are incorrect. Option (B) accurately reflects the legal position as clarified by the Supreme Court.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The Supreme Court has clearly held that a child conferred with legitimacy under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act is not a coparcener.

Answer 3

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The question asks to evaluate two statements concerning the legal legitimacy of children born from void marriages under Hindu Law.
Step 2: Key Formula or Approach:
The answer lies in Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the effect of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976.
Step 3: Detailed Explanation:


Statement I: Section 16(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, explicitly states that any child born of a marriage which is null and void under Section 11 shall be deemed to be legitimate. This legislative provision grants legitimacy to such children for the purpose of inheriting their parents' property. Therefore, Statement I is correct.

Statement II: The original Section 16 only protected children of voidable marriages. The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976, substituted the old section with the new Section 16, which extended this protection to children of void marriages as well. The Supreme Court has interpreted this amendment to have retrospective effect, meaning it applies to children born even before the 1976 amendment came into force. Therefore, the conferment of legitimacy is irrespective of the child's date of birth relative to the 1976 amendment. Statement II is also correct.

Step 4: Final Answer:
Since both statements I and II are legally correct, the most appropriate option is (C).

Answer 4

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The question asks to identify the correct statement regarding the property rights of children legitimized under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The Supreme Court's decision in {Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun (2023)}, as referenced in the preceding comprehension passage, clarified this issue. The court held that such children are not coparceners by birth. Their rights are limited to the property of their parents.
Let's analyze the options based on this:

(A) & (B): The right to ask for partition and the right to claim a share in undivided coparcenary property are rights that belong to a coparcener. Since the Supreme Court has held that these children are not coparceners, these statements are incorrect.

(C): This is incorrect because the child's right extends to the "property of his parents," which includes not only their self-acquired property but also their interest in the ancestral property (which is determined by a notional partition upon the parent's death). Stating they have rights *only* in self-acquired property is too restrictive.

(D): This statement is correct. As the child is not a coparcener, they do not possess the right to demand a partition of the joint family's coparcenary property during the lifetime of their parents or other coparceners. They can only inherit their parent's share after the parent's death.
Step 3: Final Answer:
A child legitimized under Section 16 HMA is not a coparcener and therefore cannot demand a partition of the coparcenary property.

Answer 5

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The question asks for the best summary of the Supreme Court's conclusion on the property rights of children legitimized under Section 16 of the HMA.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The comprehension passage from {Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun} provides a direct summary. It concludes that a Section 16 child is "entitled to rights in or to the absolute property of the parents and no other person." The judgment contrasts this with being "on an equal footing as a coparcener in the coparcenary." This means their right is confined to the property owned by their parents, which includes their parents' self-acquired property and their parents' defined share in ancestral property. It does not give them a right in the ancestral property of the larger joint family.
Let's evaluate the options:

(A) is directly contradicted by the judgment. They are not coparceners.
(B) This statement is the closest summary. When the court says they are entitled to the "separate property of their parents" and "not to ancestral/coparcenary property," it means they cannot claim a share from the common family pot as a coparcener. Their claim is restricted to what belongs exclusively to the parent (self-acquired) or what can be carved out as the parent's share from the ancestral property upon death (which then becomes their separate estate for succession). This option correctly captures the essence of this limitation.
(C) is incorrect. They are Class I heirs and inherit alongside other legitimate children.
(D) is incorrect. They definitely have rights in their parents' property.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The judgment's conclusion is that the rights of such children are restricted to the separate property of their parents, not the ancestral property of the joint Hindu family.