In a society where personal laws continue to shape property relations, the question of gender equality in succession rights remains far from settled. When State and Central legislations appear to pull in different directions, one abolishing the very concept of coparcenary and the other affirming it in favour of daughters, constitutional doctrines of repugnancy are tested in full. The Kerala High Court, in a recent ruling, was called upon to determine whether daughters in Kerala have equal rights in ancestral property under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, despite a prior State enactment that purported to abolish the joint Hindu family system. The decision touches upon deep constitutional values, statutory interpretation, and the transformative intent behind Parliament’s gender-equal reforms, without being merely academic in effect. Read on to explore how the Court resolved this complex legal conflict and what it means for succession law in India.
Brief Facts:
The case stemmed from a partition suit filed by the daughters of the Nambidi Parambath Tharawad, seeking equal shares in ancestral property. The property had been allotted to their brother (first defendant) through a registered partition deed, who later executed a Will in favour of his son, the third defendant. Challenging the Will, the plaintiffs claimed coparcenary rights under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, asserting that the Will was valid only to the extent of the first defendant’s individual share. While the trial court upheld the Will and dismissed the suit, the appellate court granted each plaintiff a 1/12th share in some properties. Aggrieved by the limited relief, the plaintiffs approached the Kerala High Court in a Regular Second Appeal, raising questions on the interpretation of Section 6 of the 2005 Amendment and the validity of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The appellants contended that Section 6(1) of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 conferred upon daughters the same coparcenary rights as sons, by birth. While relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Ors., they argued that the Central legislation expressly affirmed birth-based rights for daughters, whereas the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975, particularly Section 3, expressly denied such rights. They asserted that this contradiction rendered the State law repugnant under Article 254(1) of the Constitution. Further, they highlighted that Parliament enacted the 2005 Amendment fully aware of the Kerala Act, a fact evident from the 174th Law Commission Report and the Union Law Minister’s parliamentary speech delivered on August 29, 2005. The appellants also challenged the validity of the Will, asserting that once the property assumed coparcenary character on the birth of the third defendant, the first defendant could only dispose of his individual share, and the rest remained divisible among coparceners.
Contentions of the Respondents:
In contrast, the respondents maintained that the 2005 Amendment could not apply within Kerala due to the existence of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, which had abolished coparcenary and the joint family system itself. They argued that the property had become the first defendant’s self-acquired asset following the registered partition deed, and that the Will executed thereafter was fully valid. Emphasizing that the Kerala Act had received Presidential assent, they contended that it prevailed over the Central legislation by virtue of Article 254(2) and was unaffected by subsequent parliamentary enactment. They further argued that there was no repugnancy because the State and Central laws operated in different domains, one regulating joint family structures and the other succession.
Observation of the Court:
The Court observed that the State Act, which sought to extinguish coparcenary rights by birth, stood in direct conflict with the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, which conferred precisely such rights. The Court held that “Section 3 of the Act 30 of 1976 is in collusion caused to Section 6(1) and 6(2) of the Act 39 of 2005 and Section 4 of the Act 30 of 1976 is inconsistent and repugnant to Section 6 of the Amendment Act [Act 39 of 2005].”
While strengthening the legislative purpose behind the 2005 amendment, the Court affirmed that Parliament’s intent was to bring daughters the same status as sons in matters of succession. The Court observed, “The essence of the amendment is, a daughter of a coparcener is given a right by birth, to become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son.” The Court further clarified Parliament’s intent to preserve the joint family system as a legal structure, stating, “The amendments brought in would lead to an inference that, when the Parliament decided to confer benefits on a daughter by birth in a joint Hindu family, it intended to continue the joint family system in the country.”
The Court emphasized that Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Ors constitutes binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution, stating that the law declared by the Supreme Court must be applied. The Court categorically held that “It is indisputable that none of the provisions of Kerala Joint Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 expressly abolishes the joint family system in the State of Kerala stood abolished. At any rate, Sections 3 and 4, do not indicate that, the joint family system stood abolished in the State of Kerala. This aspect has not been noticed by this court in the above decisions.”
Turning to the deemed partition provision under Section 4 of the Kerala Act, the Court held that it clashed with the Central amendment’s specific requirement of partition through registered documents or court decrees under Section 6(5). Therefore, deemed partitions under the State law could not extinguish coparcenary rights recognized by the 2005 amendment.
Addressing the issue of whether property devolved upon a single coparcener could be treated as self-acquired, the Court rejected this claim by relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in N.V. Narendranath v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Andhra Pradesh. It held, “It would make a mockery of the undivided family system if this temporary reduction of the coparcenary unit to a single individual were to convert what was previously joint property belonging to an undivided family into the separate property of the surviving coparcener.” The birth of the third defendant, a son, prior to the execution of the Will, restored the coparcenary status of the property, thereby entitling the daughters to equal shares.
Further the Court held that the repugnancy in the present case arises out of the very operation of Section 3, and clarified that the absence of renewed presidential assent in the context of the later Central law meant the State enactment could not prevail as “Section 6 as amended by the Parliament by Act 39 of 2005 is the law as far as the State of Kerala is concerned.”
In its conclusion, the Court held, “On and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment Act), 2005, daughter of a Hindu who dies after 20.12.2004, in the State of Kerala is entitled to equal share in the ancestral property, subject to the exception provided under sub-Section (5) of Section 6 and the Explanation to sub-Section (5) of Section 6.”
The decision of the Court:
In the light of the foregoing discussion, the Court allowed the appeal, while setting aside the judgments of the trial court and the first appellate court. A preliminary decree was passed for the partition of the plaint schedule property by metes and bounds, granting equal shares to the plaintiffs and the third defendant. The Court ruled that the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975, was repugnant and hence ineffective in the face of the 2005 Central Amendment. It held that daughters of a Hindu dying after December 20, 2004, are entitled to equal coparcenary rights in Kerala.
Case Title: N.P.Rajani & Ors. Vs. Radha Nambidi Parambath & Anr.
Case No.: RSA NO. 436 oF 2018
Coram: Justice Easwaran S.
Advocate for Appellant: Advs. Nirmal. S AND Veena Hari
Advocate for Respondent: Sr. Adv. Shyam Padman, Sr.G.P. K. Denny Devassy, Spl. Gp S. Ranjith, Advs. C.M.Andrews, P.T.Mohankumar, Boby M.Sekhar, Laya Mary Joseph, Irene Paramel, And Piyo Harold Jaimon
Picture Source : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kerala_New_High_Court.jpg
