Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Judicature at Madras)
S. ABDUL NAZEER, KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.
Arunachala Gounder (Dead) By Lrs. – Appellant
Versus
Ponnusamy And Ors. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6659 of 2011
Decided on : 20-01-2022
(A) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Sections 14 and 15 – Female Hindu succession – Right of a widow or daughter to inherit self-acquired property or share received in partition of a coparcenary property of a Hindu male dying intestate is well recognized not only under old customary Hindu Law but also by various judicial pronouncements – If a property of a male Hindu dying intestate is a self-acquired property or obtained in partition of a coparcenary or a family property, same would devolve by inheritance and not by survivorship and a daughter of such a male Hindu would be entitled to inherit such property in preference to other collaterals. (Para 66)
(B) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Sections 14 and 15 – Female Hindu succession – If a female Hindu dies intestate without leaving any issue, then property inherited by her from her father or mother would go to heirs of her father whereas property inherited from her husband or father-in-law would go to heirs of husband – In case, a female Hindu dies leaving behind her husband or any issue, then Section 15(1)(a) comes into operation and properties left behind including properties which she inherited from her parents would devolve simultaneously upon her husband and her issues as provided in Section 15(1)(a) of the Act – Act lays down uniform and comprehensive system of inheritance and applies to persons governed by Mitakshara and Dayabhaga Schools and also to those governed previously by Murumakkattayam, Aliyasantana and Nambudri Laws – Act applies to every person who is a Hindu by religion in any of its forms including a Virashaiva, a Lingayat or a follower of Brahmo Pararthana or Arya Samaj and even to any person who is Buddhist, Jain or Sikh by religion excepting one who is Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew or Sikh by religion – Legislative intent of enacting Section 14(I) of Act was to remedy limitation of a Hindu woman who could not claim absolute interest in properties inherited by her but only had a life interest in estate so inherited – Section 14 (I) converted all limited estates owned by women into absolute estates and succession of these properties in absence of a Will or testament would take place in consonance with Section 15 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. (Paras 68, 69, 70 and 72)
Facts of the case:
Challenge has been laid in this Civil Appeal to the judgment and order dated 21.01.2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissing a regular First Appeal being A.S. No. 351 of 1994 filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.03.1994 rendered by the Trial Court dismissing Original Suit No. 295 of 1991 for partition filed by the appellant herein, claiming 1/5th share in the suit properties.
Findings of Court:
Neither the Trial Court nor the High Court adverted itself to the settled legal propositions which are squarely applicable in facts and circumstances of the case. Impugned judgment and decree dated 01.03.1994 passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 21.01.2009 are not liable to be sustained and are hereby set aside.
Result : Appeal allowed.
The legal principles established in the document clarify that when a male Hindu dies intestate, properties that are self-acquired or obtained through partition of a coparcenary or family property are to be inherited by his heirs by inheritance, not by survivorship (!) . This means that such properties do not pass automatically to the surviving coparceners but are distributed according to the rules of inheritance, with daughters being recognized as rightful heirs and entitled to inherit in preference to other collaterals (!) .
Furthermore, the law explicitly states that if a female Hindu dies intestate without leaving any issue, her inherited property from her father or mother devolves upon the heirs of her father, whereas property inherited from her husband or father-in-law passes to the heirs of her husband (!) .
The legislative intent behind the relevant statutes was to provide women with absolute rights in property, converting limited estates into absolute estates and establishing a uniform system of inheritance applicable to all Hindus, including followers of various schools of Hindu law and even other religions such as Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism [p_68–72].
The law recognizes that self-acquired property of a male Hindu, despite being purchased through Court auction or other means, is his independent property, and upon his death, his daughter would inherit such property by inheritance, not survivorship (!) [p_134–136]. The property does not automatically pass to other family members through survivorship if it is self-acquired or obtained in partition; instead, it devolves according to the rules of succession (!) .
Additionally, the order of succession for a female Hindu who inherits property from her father or mother is governed by the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, which stipulate that such property will pass to her heirs of her father or mother, respectively, unless she leaves behind a son, daughter, or issue, in which case the property would be shared among her heirs and her immediate family [p_170–177].
In summary, the inheritance of self-acquired or partitioned property of a Hindu male dying intestate is governed by inheritance laws, with daughters having a recognized right to inherit such property in preference to other relatives, and the property devolves according to the applicable statutory provisions, not by survivorship.
JUDGMENT :
Krishna Murari, J.
Challenge has been laid in this Civil Appeal to the judgment and order dated 21.01.2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras (hereinafter referred to as ‘High Court’) dismissing a regular First Appeal being A.S. No. 351 of 1994 filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.03.1994 rendered by the Trial Court dismissing Original Suit No. 295 of 1991 for partition filed by the appellant herein, claiming 1/5th share in the suit properties.
2. The following genealogy of the parties is necessary to be taken note of for appreciating their claims and contentions :
| Gurunatha Gounder | |||||
| Marappa Gounder (Son) (Died on 11.05.1949) | Ramasamy Gounder (Son) (Predeceased his brother Marappa Gounder) | ||||
| Kupayee Ammal (Daughter) (Died issueless in 1967) | |||||
| Guruntha Gounder (Son) | Thangammal (Daughter) (Plaintiff in the suit since deceased) | Ramayeeammal (Deceased Daughter) | Elayammal (Daughter) (Defendant No. 5 in the suit) | Nallammal (Daughter) (Defendant No. 6 in the Suit) | |
| 1. Ponnuswamy 2. G. Thangammal 3. Papayee 4. Kannammal (Defendants 1 to 4) | Arunachala Gounder (Deceased, represented by LRs) 1. Venkatachalam 2. A. Mottaiyappan (Since deceased represented by appellants 1 & 2 herein) | ||||
| 1. Samathuvam 2. Kannayan (Defendants 8 & 9 in the suit) | |||||
3. Suit for partition was filed by Thangammal, daughter of Ramasamy Gounder, claiming 1/5th share in the suit property on the allegations that the plaintiff and defendant nos. 5 and 6, namely, Elayammal and Nallammal and one Ramayeeammal are sisters of Gurunatha Gounder, all the five of them being the children of Ramasamy Gounder. The said Ramasamy Gounder had an elder brother by the name of Marappa Gounder. Ramasamy Gounder, predeceased his brother Marappa Gounder who died on 14.04.1957 leaving behind the sole daughter by the name of Kuppayee Ammal who also died issueless in 1967. Further case set up by the plaintiff/appellant was that after the death of Marappa Gounder, his property was inherited by Kuppayee Ammal and upon her death in 1967, all the five children of Ramasamy Gounder, namely, Gurunatha Gounder, Thangammal (Original Plaintiff now represented by legal heir), Ramayeeammal, Elayammal and Nallammal are heirs in equal of Kuppayee and entitled to 1/5th share each.
4. Gurunatha Gounder, died leaving behind defendant nos. 1 to 4 (Respondents herein) as heirs and legal representatives. Ramayeeammal died leaving behind defendants 7 to 9. The plaintiff-appellant, Thangammal, died leaving behind, appellant nos. 1, 3 and 4 herein and Appellant no. 1, Arunachala Gounder, since having died is represented by her legal representatives appellant no.1, Venkatachalam and appeallant no. 2, A. Mottaiyappan.
5. The defence set up by the defendant-respondents was that Marappa Gounder died on 11.05.1949 and not on 14.04.1957 as alleged by the plaintiff-appellant and as per the provisions of Hindu Law prevailing prior to 1956, Gurunatha Gounder was the sole heir of Marappa Gounder and accordingly, he inherited the suit properties and was in possession and enjoyment of these properties and after his death the respondents herein, were continuing as lawful owners.
6. It is an undisputed fact between the parties that the property in question i.e., the suit property, was independently purchased by Marappa Gounder in the year 1938 through the process of a Court auction and thus, it was his independent property. However, there was a issue between the parties in respect of the date of death of Marappa Gounder. The plaintiff - appellant asserted the date of death as 14.04.1957, whereas the defendant-respondent pleaded the date of death as 15.04.1949.
7. The Trial Court after considering the evidence brought on record of the case by the parties concluded that Marappa Gou
(1) If a property of a male Hindu dying intestate is a self-acquired property or obtained in partition of a coparcenary or a family property, same would devolve by inheritance and not by survivorship....
Daughters are ineligible to inherit under Mitakshara Law prior to 1956, affirming that property succession is limited to male heirs in such cases.
Under Mitakshara law, self-acquired property of a male who died before 1956 devolves solely upon male heirs; female heirs succeed only in absence of male descendants.
A female Hindu retains absolute ownership of her inherited property despite remarriage, and her children from a subsequent marriage are entitled to inherit such property.
A daughter cannot inherit property from a father who died before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, if he left behind a widow.
Devolution of interest in coparcenary property¯Daughter would not have any right, either limited or absolute, by inheritance prior to coming into force of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in property of he....
The court affirmed that under the Hindu Succession Act, daughters do not inherit coparcenary property prior to the 2005 amendment, and the plaintiff's title was upheld against the defendant's claims.
Daughters are barred from inheriting from their father if succession opened prior to the Hindu Succession Act of 1956, which does not retroactively apply.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
