The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that inherited property of a female Hindu who died issueless and intestate shall go to her parents’ or husband’s heirs.
“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,” a bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari explained the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act.
It went on to say that the Act changed Hindu succession law and gave women privileges that they had never had before in relation to their property. The bench stated, “The legislative goal of drafting Section 14 (I) of the Act was to redress the limitation of a Hindu woman who could not claim an absolute interest in the properties inherited by her but only had a life interest in the estate so acquired.”
The decision came after the legal heirs of Arunachala Gounder filed an appeal, and it overturned the decisions of the Madras High Court and the trial court. “Unfortunately, neither the trial court nor the High Court addressed the well-established legal principles that are directly applicable in this case.”
The 1956 Act shall apply because the succession of the suit properties opened in 1967 upon the death of Kupayee Ammal, and thus Ramasamy Gounder’s daughters, who are Class-I heirs of their father, shall also be heirs and entitled to a 1/5th part in each of the suit properties,” it stated.
The court stated that a widow’s or daughter’s right to inherit self-acquired property or a share received in the partition of a coparcenary property of a Hindu male dying intestate is fully recognized not only by old customary Hindu law but also by different judicial pronouncements.
“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 Prarthana 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 by religion,” it added
FACTS OF THE CASE: In this case, the property in question was admittedly Marappa Gounder’s self-acquired property (deceased). Mr. Marappa Gounder purchased the property at a court auction sale on December 15, 1938. It was his property, which he held outright. Kupayee Ammal, his sole surviving daughter, inherited the land after his death. Later, in 1967, Kupayee Ammal died without issue.
The appellant brought two questions to the court’s attention.
1. Whether the late Gounder’s lone surviving daughter, Kupayee Ammal, may inherit the land by inheritance and the property would not pass to the father’s brother’s son by survivorship. (Before the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 was enacted, as Marappa Gounder died before the Act was enacted.)
2. Another issue was the order of succession following the death of such a daughter, which occurred after the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 was enacted.
“If a property of a male Hindu dying intestate is a self-acquired property or obtained in the partition of a co-parcenery or a family property, the same would devolve by inheritance rather than by survivorship, and a daughter of such a male Hindu would be entitled to inherit such property in preference to other collaterals,” the Supreme Court said.
This privilege is well recognised, according to the Court, not only by old customary Hindu law but also by different judicial judgments. As a result, Kupayee Ammal had the right to inherit the property.
In terms of the line of succession after Kupayee Ammal’s death, the Court found that Sections 15 and 16 of the Indian Succession Act, 1956 clearly describe what happens next.
The Court decided that if a Hindu woman dies intestate without children, the property she acquired from her father or mother would go to her father’s descendants, but the property she inherited from her husband or father-in-law would belong to the husband’s heirs.
If a female Hindu dies without leaving a husband or children, Section 15(1)(a) kicks in, and the possessions left behind, including those she inherited from her parents, devolve concurrently to her husband and children, as stipulated in Section 15(1)(a) of the Act.
The legislature’s primary goal in enacting Section 15(2) was to ensure that the inherited property of a female Hindu who died issueless and intestate was returned to her family. Section 15(1)(d) states that if all of the female’s heirs listed in Entries (a)-(c) die before then, all of her property, regardless of how it was gained, will pass to the father’s heirs.
If a female Hindu dies intestate without leaving any issue, the property inherited from her father or mother will go to the heirs of her father, while the property inherited from her husband or father-in-law will go to the heirs of the husband, and so on.
In the instant case as Kupayee Ammal inherited the property from her father (Late Marappa Gounder), therefore the property will would go to the heirs of her father.
The Court held that late Ramasamy Gounder’s (brother of late Marappa Gounder) daughters being Class-I heirs of their father too shall be heirs and entitled to 1/5th share each in the suit properties
The Hindu Succession Act of 1956 marked a watershed moment in Hindu history by recognising female Hindus as absolute property owners and equal inheritors to their male counterparts. Daughters become equal coparceners of the Hindu joint family in 2005, with the same rights and responsibilities as their brothers. In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that a daughter is a coparcener by the factum of birth and that she is entitled to her share regardless of when she was born or whether her father was alive when the 2005 amendment was enacted.
However, Hindu law regarding female intestate succession is still a source of contention. By defining her heirs not in terms of her own self, but rather in terms of blood link to the male head of the family, the law refuses to consider women as separate creatures capable of begetting a lineage. The Hindu Succession Act divides eligible heirs into two categories: her father’s heirs and her husband’s heirs. Furthermore, her husband’s heirs, even distant relatives of her spouse such as agnates and cognates, receive first priority for inheriting the self-acquired property of women dying intestate, including gifts, settlements, sales, and so on, over her own parents, siblings, and other near relatives.
Her inherited property “returns to the source,” i.e. the Hindu family from which she inherited it. It’s a concern because the legislation primarily aims to protect property in the Hindu male’s family. Its origins can be traced back to Hindu law, which stated that females could not be coparceners in a joint Hindu family and could not inherit total ownership from males. They could use the property for as long as they wanted, but it had to be returned to where it originated from after that.
The Hindu Succession Act was hailed as a reform of previous Hindu rules because it placed a greater emphasis on love, affection, proximity, and reciprocity. These factors, however, take a backseat when it comes to female intestate succession. The law continues to demand a wife to accept her husband’s relations as her own, does not give full meaning to women’s actual property ownership, and permits the outdated concept of women as limited and temporary property holders to prevail.
The current provisions on succession over an intestate female’s property contravene the Constitution’s core framework, which includes a fundamental right to gender equality. It’s also incompatible with today’s world when female literacy is increasing, more women are generating wealth, and the marriageable age has been raised to empower women. The law does not effectively protect the girl’s parent’s financial stability, and it diminishes parents’ incentives to invest in their daughter’s education and job development if they know that her self-acquired property will devolve first to her marriage relations.