6C. Preferential right to acquire property in certain cases.
(1) Where, after the commencement of Hindu Succession (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1990 an interest in any immovable property of an intestate or in any business carried by him or her, whether solely or in conjunction with others devolves under sections 6A or 6B upon two or more heirs and any one of such heirs proposes to transfer his or her interest in the property or business, the other heirs shall have a preferential right to acquire the interest proposed to be transferred.
(2) The consideration for which any interest in the property of the deceased may be transferred under sub-section (1) shall in the absence of any agreement between the parties, be determined by the court, on application, being made to it in this behalf, and if any person proposing to acquire the interest is not willing to acquire it for the consideration so determined, such person shall be liable to pay all costs of or incidental to the application.
(3) If there are two or more heirs proposing to acquire any interest under this section, that heir who offers the highest consideration for the transfer shall be preferred.
In this section ‘court‘ means the court within the limits of whose jurisdiction the immovable property is situate or the business is carried on, and includes any other court which the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette specify in this behalf.
[Vide Karnataka Act 23 of 1994, sec. 2 (w.e.f. 30-7-1994).]
Partition of coparcenary property-
(i) The contention of the petitioners that there was automatic partition amongst the heirs of the deceased Karta on his death has been negatived because it is only when the deceased had left his surviving female heirs as provided in proviso to section 6 of the Act, a notional partition is deemed to have taken place in the joint family property for the purpose of ascertaining the share of the deceased in the joint family properties which comes to the share of the female heirs. If there are male heirs there is no automatic partition;
Shivgonda Balgonda Patil v. Director of Resettlement, AIR 1992 Bom 72
(ii) The heirs will get his or her share in the interest which the deceased had in the coparcenary property at the time of his death in addition to the share which he or she received or must be deemed to have received in the notional partition;
Gurupad v. Hirabai, AIR 1978 SC 1239
(iii) The fiction in the explanation of section 6 of the Act should be carried to a narrow extent only with a new point to implement the purpose for which it was introduced. When there were only two coparceners and one of them died, then if any person other then the coparcener is entitled to a share as a result of severance of the share of the deceased coparcener, the share of such other person will become fixed;
Shushilabai v. Naraynarao, AIR 1975 Bom 257
(iv) The deceased coparcener’s share gets fixed on the date of his death, subsequent fluctuations in the fortunes of the coparceners do not affect it;
Karuppa v. Palaniammal; AIR 1963 Mad 254
- Top 138 Legal Maxims for Law Exams - 7th January 2024
- 10 Legal Jobs and Career Options After Law in 2024 - 7th January 2024
- 11 Tips to Pass AIBE With Bare Acts and MCQ Tests in 2024 - 7th January 2024