In one significient ruling, the Supreme Court has held that daughters have undisputed right to inherit the self-acquired property or share received in the partition of a coparcenary property of her deceased father who died intestate under Hindu Law.

The Bench comprising of Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice Krishna Murarai analysed into detail, customary Hindu Law and judicial pronouncements, and observed that the right of a widow or daughter to inherit the self-acquired property or share received in the partition of a coparcenary property of a Hindu male dying intestate is well recognized in both.

Brief Facts of the Case

The property in the present case was admittedly the self-acquired property of one Marappa Gounder who died intestate. The appellant is sole surviving daughter and the question she raised via her appeal is whether she will inherit the same by inheritance and the property shall not devolve by survivorship.

Submissions 

The 174th Law Commission in its report on ‘Property Rights of Women’ while proposing reforms under the Hindu Law has observed that ancient text as also the Smritis, the Commentaries written by various renowned learned persons and even judicial pronouncements have recognized the rights of several female heirs, the wives and the daughter’s being the foremost of them.

Sources of Hindu Law

‘Mulla’ in his book Hindu Law (22nd Edition), while discussing the law prior to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 says that there are two systems of inheritance amongst the Hindus in India, namely, Mitakshara system and Dayabhaga system. The Dayabhaga system prevails in Bengal, while the Mitakshara system is applicable to other parts of India.  According to ‘Mulla’, Mitakshara recognises two modes of devolution of property, namely, survivorship and succession. The rules of survivorship apply to joint family property, and the rules of succession apply to property held in absolute severalty by the last owner. Under Mitakshara Law, the right to inherit arises from propinquity, i.e., proximity of relationship.

The Mitakshara law also recognises inheritance by succession but only to the property separately owned by an individual, male or female. Females are included as heirs to this kind of property by Mitakshara law. Before the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act 1929, the Bengal, Benares and Mithila sub-schools of Mitakshara recognised only five female relations as being entitled to inherit namely - widow, daughter, mother paternal grandmother and paternal great-grand mother.

The Madras subschool recognized the heritable capacity of a larger number of females heirs that is of the son's daughter, daughter's daughter and the sister, as heirs who are expressly named as heirs in Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929. The son's daughter and the daughter's daughter ranked as bandhus in Bombay and Madras.

The Bombay school which is most liberal to women, recognized a number of other female heirs, including a half -sister, father's sister and women married into the family such as stepmother, son's widow, brother's widow and also many other females classified as bandhus. From the above discussions, it is abundantly clear that a daughter was in fact capable of inheriting the father's separate estate.

The rights of women in the family to maintenance were in every case very substantial rights and on whole, it would seem that some of the commentators erred in drawing adverse inferences from the vague references to women’s succession in the earlier Smritis. The views of the Mitakshara on the matter are unmistakable. Vijneshwara also nowhere endorses the view that women are incompetent to inherit

The Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act II of 1929 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act of 1929), for the first time entitled the daughter’s daughter, subject to a special family or local custom, to succeed to the property of a male Hindu governed by Mitakshara Law. Daughter’s daughter then ranked 13th-B in the order of succession.

Supreme Court Observation

The Court stated at the outset that the in present case determination and adjudication of the issue depends upon the answers to the following questions :-

1) What is the nature of the property and what would be the course of succession if it is a separate property as opposed to undivided property? 

2) Whether a sole daughter could inherit her father’s separate property dying intestate? And if so 

3) What would be the order of succession after the death of such daughter?

The Court at the outset noted that Right of a widow or daughter to inherit the self-acquired property or share received in partition of a coparcenary property of a Hindu male dying intestate is well recognized not only under the old customary Hindu Law but also by various judicial pronouncements and thus answer to Nos. 1 and 2 are as under:

“If a property of a male Hindu dying intestate is a selfacquired property or obtained in partition of a co-parcenery or a family property, the 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.”

In the case at hands, since the property in question was admittedly the self-acquired property of Marappa Gounder despite the family being in state of jointness upon his death intestate, his sole surviving daughter Kupayee Ammal, will inherit the same by inheritance and the property shall not devolve by survivorship, the Court observed in the backdrop of above.

Question no. 3 is concerned under the old customary Hindu Law, there are contradictory opinions in respect of the order of succession to be followed after the death of such a daughter inheriting the property from his father. One school is of the view that such a daughter inherits a limited estate like a widow, and after her death would revert back to the heirs of the deceased male who would be entitled to inherit by survivorship. While other school of thought holds the opposite view, the Court said.

"This conflict of opinion may not be relevant in the present case inasmuch as since Kupayee Ammal, daughter of Marappa Gounder, after inheriting the suit property upon the death of Marappa Gounder, died after enforcement of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act of 1956’), which has amended and codified the Hindu Law relating to intestate succession among Hindus. The main scheme of this Act is to establish complete equality between male and female with regard to property rights and the rights of the female were declared absolute, completely abolishing all notions of a limited estate. The Act brought about changes in the law of succession among Hindus and gave rights which were till then unknown in relation to women’s property. The Act lays down a uniform and comprehensive system of inheritance and applies, inter-alia, to persons governed by the Mitakshara and Dayabhaga Schools and also to those governed previously by the Murumakkattayam, Aliyasantana and Nambudri Laws. The 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 the 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. Section 14 of the Act of 1956 declares property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property."

The Court opined that the legislative intent of enacting Section 14(I) of the Act was to remedy the limitation of a Hindu woman who could not claim absolute interest in the properties inherited by her but only had a life interest in the estate so inherited.

"The scheme of sub-Section (1) of Section 15 goes to show that property of Hindu females dying intestate is to devolve on her own heirs, the list whereof is enum erated in Clauses (a) to (e) of Section 15 (1). SubSection (2) of Section 15 carves out exceptions only with regard to property acquired through inheritance and further, the exception is confined to the property inherited by a Hindu female either from her father or mother, or from her husband, or from her father-in-law. The exceptions carved out by sub-Section (2) shall operate only in the event of the Hindu female dies without leaving any direct heirs, i.e., her son or daughter or children of the pre-deceased son or daughter."

 Thus, if a female Hindu dies intestate without leaving any issue, then the property inherited by her from her father or mother would go to the heirs of her father whereas the property inherited from her husband or father-in-law would go to the heirs of the husband. In case, a female Hindu dies leaving behind her husband or any issue, then Section 15(1)(a) comes into operation and the properties left behind including the 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 Hindu Succession Act.

The Court referred to Balwant Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab, 2008 Latest Caselaw 124 SC and Bhagat Ram Vs. Teja Singh, 2001 Latest Caselaw 596 SC which discusses Sections 15 & 16 of the Hindu SuccessionAct

Applying the above settled legal proposition to the facts of the case at hands, the Court noted that since the succession of the suit properties opened in 1967 upon death of Kupayee Ammal, the 1956 Act shall apply and thereby Ramasamy Gounder’s daughter’s being Class-I heirs of their father too shall also be heirs and entitled to 1/5th Share in each of the suit properties and accordingly set aside the impugned order and judgement.

Read Judgement Here:

Share this Document :

Picture Source :

 
Sheetal Joon