Listen to this article in summarized format
In a significant judgement, the Karnataka High Court ruled on February 2, 2026, that under Sections 32 and 33 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, a mother cannot inherit her deceased son’s assets if he died intestate (without a Will) and is survived by a widow and lineal descendants (children). Since the son was a Christian, the Indian Succession Act, 1925, applied to this case.
Income Tax Guide
Income Tax Union Budget FY 2026-27 LiveIncome Tax Slabs FY 2025-26Income Tax Calculator 2025
As per the submission, the son’s wife and his child approached the Karnataka High Court was approached after the trial court denied their petition for a succession certificate, stating that the mother is the legal heir of the deceased son.
The Karnataka High Court said that the trial court had erred in law by failing to recognise that the mother of the deceased son, who died without a Will, is excluded from inheritance under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, when a wife and children survive the deceased.
The background that led to this judgement
Mr Vaz followed the Christian religion, and died intestate without leaving any Will or testament. During his lifetime, he had invested certain money in shares of Reliance Group of Companies without nominating a nominee for transmission of shares after his death.
After his death, his wife and son, being his lineal descendants, became entitled to transfer the aforesaid shares held by the late Mr Vaz in the Reliance Group of Companies in their favour. For this, they applied and submitted all the necessary papers, including forms, affidavits, copies of the share certificate, and the death certificate of the late Mr Vaz.
However, they (wife, son) were informed that the said shares cannot be transferred in their name without furnishing a succession certificate issued by a Competent Court of Law.
To get a succession certificate, they filed a petition in court under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, on the file of XX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. However, the Trial Court dismissed the petition. Then, the wife and son filed an appeal with the Karnataka High Court. On February 2, 2026, the Karnataka High Court ruled in their favour with the above observations.
Why did the mother lose this case?
Smita Paliwal, Partner, King Stubb & Kasiva, Advocates and Attorneys, said to ET Wealth Online: The mother lost the case because the statutory scheme under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 clearly excludes her from inheritance when the deceased is survived by a widow and lineal descendants.
According to Paliwal, Sections 32 and 33 lay down a fixed order of succession for Christians, under which the estate devolves first on the spouse and children; only in their absence do parents step in.
The Trial Court treated the mother as a necessary heir based on a general notion of “legal heirs”, but the High Court correctly held that succession cannot be determined on equitable considerations or customary assumptions and must strictly follow the statute.
Paliwal says: “Since the intestate left behind a wife and children, the entire estate was required to devolve on them, one-third to the widow and two-thirds to the children, leaving no share for the mother. The ruling reinforces that in succession certificate proceedings, courts must apply the precise statutory hierarchy rather than expand the class of heirs beyond what the law permits.”
Karnataka High Court analysis and discussion
The Karnataka High Court said that the core issue in this appeal relates solely to the impugned denial of the grant of a succession certificate to the appellants. The late Mr Vaz died intestate, and he is survived by his wife and children as his lineal descendants.
The Karnataka High Court said: “The Trial Court refused the certificate on the mistaken premise that the mother’s status as a legal heir precluded the applicant’s (wife and son) claim.”
The Karnataka High Court said that the Trial Court improperly rejected the application, citing the mother’s legal heir status as the exclusive reason to deny the certificate, and “this is unsustainable in law.”
The reason is apparent and simple. The Karnataka High Court said that the Trial Court erred in law by failing to apply Sections 32 and 33 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which provide that the mother does not inherit if the deceased is survived by a widow and lineal descendants (children).
The Karnataka High Court said: “Under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the mother of the intestate is excluded from inheritance when a wife and children survive the deceased.”
As the son died intestate and left behind lineal descendants (wife and children), the entire estate devolves upon them, and the mother holds no legal right to a share. According to Section 33 of the Act, if the intestate dies leaving a widow and lineal descendants, 1/3rd of the property goes to the widow and 2/3rd to the lineal descendants, the high court said.
The Karnataka High Court said that the Trial Court misconstrued and misapplied Sections 32 and 33 of the Act in its ruling.
The Karnataka High Court said: “If a son dies intestate, leaving behind a wife and children, the mother does not have a legal right to a share.”
The Karnataka High Court said that the trial court’s judgement is contrary to Sections 32 and 33 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
The trial court overlooked that the mother only succeeds in the absence of lineal descendants (direct descendants). Since the son died intestate, leaving a wife and children, the mother is not a legal heir. Upon the intestate succession of Mr Vaz, the estate is to be distributed among the widow and surviving children as direct lineal descendants.
The Karnataka High Court said: “In the present case, the appellants constitute the direct lineal descendants of the late Mr Vaz; hence, they are entitled to succeed to his estate or assets by operation of law.”
To be more precise, the appellants (wife and son), being the direct lineal descendants of Mr. Vaz, hold the legal right to succeed his estate.
Judgement:
● For the foregoing reasons, the order dated 08.11.2019, passed by the Court of the XX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-32), Bangalore City, in P & S.C.No.532/2018 is liable to be set aside, and accordingly it is set aside.
● The Trial Court is directed to grant the Succession Certificate in favour of the appellants in accordance with the law forthwith within a week’s time from the receipt of the certified copy of this order.
● Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. As the records are secured by the Registry concerned, in view of disposal of the appeal, the Registry concerned is hereby directed to return the TCRs to the concerned Court forthwith.
aniltikotekar4sme.com 