Top News

New Delhi: The Karnataka High Court has clarified the legal distinction between ancestral property and self-acquired property, holding that property inherited by a father from his father does not automatically become ancestral property in which children have a birthright.

The court observed that the character of a property depends on its origin, the manner in which it was acquired, and its legal status, rather than merely the fact that it has passed from one generation to another.

According to the High Court, a property is generally treated as ancestral property when it has remained part of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and has retained its joint family character across generations. In such cases, children acquire rights in the property by birth.

However, the court clarified that if a grandfather acquired a property through his own earnings or purchase, it remains self-acquired property. Even if that property is later inherited by the father, it does not automatically become ancestral property. In such circumstances, the father may hold it as his separate property, and children do not have a birthright over it.

The court explained that self-acquired property includes assets obtained through personal income, purchase, gifts, a will, or individual effort. The owner has full authority to sell, transfer, gift, or bequeath such property through a will.

The judgment further noted that a self-acquired property may acquire the character of ancestral property only if its owner voluntarily blends it into the joint family property of a Hindu Undivided Family and it retains that joint family status. Mere inheritance across generations is not sufficient to change its legal character.

The High Court also observed that children do not have any legal right over their father’s self-acquired property during his lifetime. However, if the father dies without leaving a will, the children may inherit the property as legal heirs under the applicable succession laws. If a valid will exists, the property will be distributed according to its terms.

The court reiterated that under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, daughters enjoy equal rights with sons in ancestral property. However, the amendment does not convert self-acquired property into ancestral property.

The observations came while dismissing a petition filed by Karnataka-born U.S.-based woman Usha N. Swamy, who sought an equal share in her grandfather’s property. She argued that since the property had passed to her father after her grandfather’s death, it had become ancestral property, giving her a birthright.

The High Court rejected the plea, holding that the property had originally been the grandfather’s self-acquired property and had devolved upon the father as his separate property. Therefore, it did not qualify as ancestral property, and the petitioner was not entitled to claim a share by birth.