The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 grants daughters rights to ancestral property by birth, contrary to prior law.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the 2nd defendant in a suit for partition. The property originally belonged to one Velayudhan, the father of the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4. It is stated that the properties in the plaint schedule, except item No.3 devolved upon one Velayudhan based on a partition deed of the year 1938 as deed No.1438/1938. The property was in the possession of the Velayudhan until he died on 3.6.1984. One of the sons filed a suit, O.S. No.43 of 2008, before the Additional Sub Court, Palakkad, contending that the properties should be divided into five equal shares, including the one to his mother and the other four to his siblings. The appellant, who is the 2nd defendant in the suit, resisted the suit by contending that since the property is an ancestral property and the parties are governed by the Mithakshara law, only the two sons are entitled to get the right by birth since they were born prior to the advent of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975. The trial court, on appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to succeed and the plaint schedule property is liable to be divided into five equal shares by metes and bounds. It has come out evidence during the course of proceedings that the plaintiff purchased 1/5^th share of his mother/the 1^st defendant. Accordingly, by judgment and decree dated 3.11.2010, the suit was decreed. Aggrieved, the 2^nd defendant preferred A.S. No.36 of 2011, which was dismissed by judgment dated 22.1.2015 by the Additional District Court-IV, Palakkad. Hence, the 2^nd defendant is in appeal before this Court.

2. Heard Sri. Sajan Varghese K., the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. P.U. Shailajan, the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent.

3. In this appeal, it is the specific case of the appellant that the daughters of the deceased Velayudhan, i.e., defendants 3 and 4, will not get any right by birth because of the fact that the female heirs are not entitled to any share by right of birth, and therefore, the findings of the court below are unsustainable.

4. Per contra, it is contended by Sri. P.U. Shailajan, the learned counsel for the plaintiff, contended that in the light of the amendment brought in to The Hindu Succession Act , in the year 2005, the female heirs of a co-parcener are also entitled to claim rights by birth. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma and Others [2020 SCC OnLine SC 641], which was followed by this Court in Rajani V. Radha Nambidi Parambath [2025 (4) KLT 415] .

5. On consideration of the submissions raised across the bar, this Court is of the view that the point raised in the present appeal is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Rajani (Supra). Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the substantial questions of law framed in the memorandum of appeal are liable to be answered against the appellant, and it is thus held that even if the property involved in the suit is ancestral, the benefits of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, enure to the defendants 3 and 4. Accordingly, the judgments of the court below are sustained.

The appeal fails, and the same is dismissed.

Sd/-