Ancestral Property Rights of Daughters Affirmed by Madras High Court

Chennai: In a significant ruling, the High Court of Judicature at Madras has clarified the character of property inherited by a son from his father, particularly concerning the rights of daughters under the amended Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Justice N.Seshasayee , presiding over a second appeal, overturned a first appellate court's decision, restoring a trial court's preliminary decree for partition, granting daughters a share in what the court determined to be ancestral property.

The case, S.A.No.527 of 2022 , involved a dispute between two daughters (plaintiffs/appellants) and their father and two brothers (defendants/respondents) over a piece of immovable property.

Case Background:

The suit property was allotted to the first defendant (the father) in a partition deed dated 01.09.1986 (Ext.A1) between him and his siblings, dealing with properties originally held by their father (the plaintiffs' grandfather, Rangasamy Chettiar ). The daughters contended that the properties obtained by their father under Ext.A1 were ancestral and that they, as coparceners under the 2005 amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act (HSA), were entitled to a 1/5 share each.

The defendants countered, arguing that the property received by the father in the 1986 partition became his personal property, especially considering Rangasamy Chettiar 's death in 1962 would have triggered a notional partition under the original Section 6, followed by devolution under Section 8 of the Act. They also relied on settlement deeds executed by the father in favour of his sons (Exts.B1 and B2) shortly before the daughters filed the partition suit. An earlier injunction suit filed by the sons based on these settlement deeds was jointly tried with the partition suit.

The trial court decreed the partition suit in favour of the daughters and dismissed the sons' injunction suit. However, the first appellate court reversed the trial court's finding, holding that the suit property was not ancestral, leading to the dismissal of the partition suit. The daughters then filed the present second appeal.

Key Arguments:

Mr. Sharath Chandran, counsel for the daughters, argued that the partition deed (Ext.A1) explicitly described the properties as ancestral, binding the parties, including the father, through estoppel. He contended that properties inherited by a son from his father remain ancestral in the son's hands vis-à-vis his own male issue, and now, daughters after the 2005 amendment. He cited Supreme Court judgments in Shyam Narayan Prasad v. Krishna Prasad and Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma to support the claim for division under the amended Section 6. He further argued that the first appellate court misconstrued Ext.A1 and wrongly shifted the onus of proof.

Mr. S. Silambannan, Senior Advocate for the defendants, argued that upon Rangasamy Chettiar 's death in 1962, a notional partition under the pre-amended Section 6 occurred. His share then devolved on all his heirs (sons and daughters) under Section 8 HSA. Property inherited by a son under Section 8 is his personal property, not ancestral, citing Arshnoor Singh v. Harpal Jaur and Uttam v. Saubhag Singh . He contended that the 1986 partition (Ext.A1) further confirmed the separate nature of the father's share. He also noted that the daughters in the 1986 partition took only cash, not a share in the property.

Court's Analysis and Reasoning:

Justice Seshasayee meticulously analyzed the legal position, considering the interplay between original Section 6, Section 8, and amended Section 6 of the HSA, alongside the doctrine of estoppel and judicial precedents.

1. Estoppel and Recital in Ext.A1: The Court found that Ext.A1 explicitly treated both ancestral properties and self-acquired properties of Rangasamy Chettiar as a single block of "ancestral properties" for the purpose of partition among his children. Applying the doctrine of estoppel, the Court held that the first defendant, being a party to Ext.A1, was bound by this recital and could not later contend the property was his self-acquisition, especially as he failed to prove the recital was false or fraudulent.

   > "When the words which the parties to Ext.A1 employed therein to describe the property that they chose to divide thereunder disclose their intent to treat the entire property as an ancestral property in the hands of Rangasamy Chettiar , then unless it is proved to be engineered by fraud, misrepresentation, or plainly false, they bind them."

2. Effect of HSA on Coparcenary and Ancestral Property: The Court critically examined the impact of notional partition under the original Section 6, contrasting the views in Gurupad and Uttam (suggesting complete disintegration of coparcenary) with Vineeta Sharma . Citing Parliamentary debates during the enactment of HSA (referenced from Kalpana Mehta and B. Banerjee ), the Court emphasized that the legislative intent behind Section 6 was primarily to provide economic security to female heirs, not to destroy the fundamentals of Hindu Law like coparcenary or ancestral property entirely.

   > "The fiction of notional partition was meant for an aforesaid specific purpose. It was not to bring about the real partition. Neither did it affect the severance of interest nor demarcated the interest of surviving coparceners or of the other family members... The entire partition of the coparcenary is not provided by deemed fiction; otherwise, coparcenary could not have continued..." ( Vineeta Sharma quoted)

   The Court held that a notional partition under original Section 6 only carves out the deceased's share for devolution, reducing the quantum available to surviving coparceners, but does not destroy the remaining coparcenary or prevent that remaining property from retaining its ancestral character in the hands of the surviving male coparceners.

3. Character of Property Inherited by Son under Section 8: The Court addressed the contention that property inherited by a son under Section 8 HSA becomes his personal property ( Chandra Sen , Karuppan Chettiar ). While acknowledging this view, the Court reasoned that strictly applying it would potentially bar the formation of new ancestral property across generations, which could not have been the legislative intent given that Section 6 still operates on ancestral property. Referring to Mulla and C. Krishna Prasad (followed in Shyam Narayan Prasad ), the Court reaffirmed the principle that a share obtained by a coparcener on partition of ancestral property is ancestral property as regards his male issue .

   > "The share which a coparcener obtains on partition of ancestral property is ancestral property as regards his male issue. They take an interest in it by birth... Such share, however, is ancestral property only as regards his male issue. As regards other relations, it is separate property..." ( C. Krishna Prasad quoted)

   The Court concluded that the 2/3rd share remaining with the father (and his brother) after Rangasamy Chettiar 's notional partition continued as ancestral property. Furthermore, the 1/18th share the father inherited from his father's notionally partitioned share under Section 8 also assumed the character of ancestral property in his hands once he had sons. Alternatively, the recitals in Ext.A1 indicated the father's conscious blending of this inherited share with the existing ancestral property.

4. Effect of Daughters Taking Cash in Ext.A1: The Court held that the decision of the daughters in the 1986 partition (Ext.A1) to take cash in lieu of a property share was a conscious abandonment of their right to seek partition at that time . However, this did not alter the fundamental character of the remaining property received by the father as ancestral property for future generations or for the application of the 2005 amendment.

5. Amended Section 6 (2005): With the property determined to be ancestral in the father's hands, the Court held that the daughters (plaintiffs), having become coparceners by birth effective from 09.09.2005, were entitled to a share in this property. The settlement deeds executed by the father in 2008, after the daughters' rights as coparceners had vested and after they had issued partition notices, could not defeat their share.

Decision and Implications:

The Madras High Court allowed the second appeal, setting aside the first appellate court's judgment and restoring the trial court's preliminary decree. This means the plaintiffs (daughters) are entitled to a 1/5 share each in the suit property.

The judgment reinforces the principle, particularly after the Vineeta Sharma ruling, that the Hindu Succession Act, while granting rights to female heirs, does not necessarily dismantle the core concepts of coparcenary and ancestral property. It clarifies that property inherited by a son from his father can maintain its ancestral character concerning the son's lineal descendants, thereby enabling claims by daughters under the 2005 amendment, even if the inheritance was partly governed by Section 8 of the Act. The ruling also underscores the binding nature of recitals in deeds regarding the character of property among the parties to the deed.