Kerala Joint Family Abolition Act 1975 Repugnant to Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005, Daughters Get Equal Share: Kerala High Court - 2025-07-08

Kerala Law Abolishing Right by Birth Repugnant to Central Act Granting Daughters Equal Property Rights: High Court

Kochi: In a landmark judgment with far-reaching implications for gender justice in property inheritance, the Kerala High Court has declared key provisions of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975, to be repugnant to and overridden by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. Justice Easwaran S. ruled that daughters in Kerala are entitled to an equal share as sons in ancestral property, effectively applying the 2005 Central Act that grants daughters coparcenary rights by birth.

The court held that the 1975 Kerala Act, which abolished the right to property by birth, is in direct conflict with the 2005 Central Act and must cede to the latter under the constitutional doctrine of repugnancy.

Case Background: A Daughter's Fight for Equality

The case, N.P. Rajani vs Radha Nambidi Parambath , involved a suit for partition filed by four daughters against their mother and brother. Their father, the original defendant, had bequeathed the ancestral property exclusively to his son through a Will. The daughters argued that following the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, they were coparceners by birth and thus entitled to an equal share in the property, rendering the Will valid only to the extent of their father's individual share.

The trial court had dismissed their suit, but the first appellate court granted them a minimal 1/12th share each. Unsatisfied, the daughters approached the High Court, posing a fundamental legal question: Does the 2005 Central Act, which champions gender equality in succession, apply in Kerala, given the existence of the state's 1975 Act that abolished the very concept of joint Hindu family property?

Clashing Legislations: State vs. Centre

The core of the legal battle rested on the irreconcilable conflict between two laws:

The Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975: This state law (Act 30 of 1976) abolished the right to claim property merely by virtue of birth in a family (Section 3) and created a "deemed partition," converting joint tenancy into tenancy-in-common (Section 4).

The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005: This Central law (Act 39 of 2005) amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, to confer the status of coparcener on daughters by birth, giving them the same rights and liabilities as sons.

Summary of Arguments

For the Appellants (Daughters): The daughters' counsel argued that the 2005 Central Act, a progressive legislation aimed at removing gender discrimination, must prevail. They contended that Section 3 of the Kerala Act is in direct opposition to Section 6 of the Central Act. Relying on the Supreme Court's seminal ruling in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) , they asserted that a daughter's right is acquired by birth and cannot be negated by a conflicting state law.

For the Respondents (Son and Mother): The respondents argued that the 1975 Kerala Act had already abolished the joint family system in the state, leaving no coparcenary property for the 2005 Central Act to operate on. They claimed the 1975 Act, having received Presidential assent, was a standalone law immune to the subsequent Central amendment.

High Court's Decisive Reasoning

Justice Easwaran S. , in a detailed and scholarly judgment, dismantled the respondents' arguments and established the supremacy of the 2005 Central Act.

On Repugnancy (Article 254): The Court found an "irreconcilable conflict" between the two laws.

"The State Act prevents any person from claiming right by birth. But the Central legislation enables a daughter to claim such a right... the collusion between Section 3 [of the Kerala Act] and Section 6 [of the Central Act] is so evident that in order to give effect to the provisions of Section 6(1) of the Central legislation, the State enactment has to give its way."

The Court noted that while the Presidential assent in 1976 protected the Kerala Act against the original Hindu Succession Act of 1956, it offered no immunity against the subsequent 2005 amendment by Parliament. For the state law to prevail, it would have required a fresh amendment and Presidential assent post-2005.

On the Impact of Vineeta Sharma : The judgment heavily relied on the principles laid down in Vineeta Sharma , which clarified that a daughter's right is by birth and not dependent on her father being alive on the date of the 2005 amendment. The Supreme Court had also strictly defined "partition" as one effected by a registered deed or a court decree, implicitly invalidating the "deemed partition" under the Kerala Act. Justice Easwaran S. observed that this crucial Supreme Court ruling rendered previous Kerala High Court decisions upholding the 1975 Act as no longer good law.

On the "Abolition" of Joint Family: The Court astutely pointed out that despite its title, the 1975 Kerala Act contains no specific provision that actually abolishes the joint family system itself; it only abolished the right by birth and joint tenancy.

Final Verdict and Implications

The High Court answered the substantial questions of law in favour of the daughters, holding that: 1. Sections 3 and 4 of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975, are repugnant to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, and are therefore void. 2. Daughters of a Hindu in Kerala who died after December 20, 2004, are entitled to an equal share in ancestral property as sons.

The Court set aside the lower courts' judgments and passed a preliminary decree for partition, granting the daughters and the son equal shares in the property.

This ruling is a significant victory for gender equality, ensuring that daughters in Kerala can no longer be denied their rightful inheritance in ancestral properties based on a state law that is now constitutionally ineffective.