DATE OF THE CASE: 20 January, 2022
APPELLANT: Arunachala Gounder (Dead) by LRS.
RESPONDENT: Ponnusamy and Ors.
BENCH/ JUDGES: Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice Krishna Murari
LEGAL PROVISIONS: Section 14 and Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
FACTS:
Gurunatha Gounder had two sons, Marappa Gounder and Ramasamy Gounder. In 1938, Marappa Gounder independently purchased a property through a court auction. Marappa Gounder had a single daughter named Kuppayee Ammal. In 1949, Marappa Gounder died and the property was inherited by Kuppayee Ammal. Unfortunately, Kuppayee Ammal passed away in 1967 without having any children.
Thangammal, who is the daughter of Ramasamy Gounder, filed a suit for partition. Upon Kuppayee’s death, all five children of Ramasamy Gounder, namely, Gurunatha Gounder, Thangammal (Original Plaintiff now represented by legal heir), Ramayeeammal, Elayammal and Nallammal, became heirs and are entitled to an equal 1/5th share each.
The defendant-respondents argued that Marappa Gounder died in 1949, before the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 was passed. According to Hindu law prevailing before 1956, Gurunatha Gounder was the sole heir of Marappa Gounder’s property. Therefore, Gurunatha Gounder inherited the properties and was in possession of them until his death. After his death, the respondents, as Gurunatha Gounder’s heirs, became the lawful owners of the properties.
The Trial Court concluded that the property in question would be inherited by the only son of Ramasamy Gounder, the deceased brother of Marappa Gounder, by survivorship and that the plaintiff-appellant had no legal right to file for division of the property. The High Court of Judicature at Madras also concluded that the property would pass on to the defendant through survivorship.
ISSUED RAISED:
In its ruling, the Supreme Court addressed the following issues:
- What is the characteristic of the property and what would be the inheritance process if it is considered individual property rather than undivided property?
- Is it possible for a sole daughter to inherit her father’s separate property when the father dies intestate?
- After such a daughter’s death, how would the succession be decided?
CONTENTION:
Arguments from the Appellant’s Side:
The learned counsel for the appellant argues that the property was purchased by Marappa Gounder at a court auction in 1938, so it is his own property and was never considered joint family property. Therefore, upon Marappa Gounder’s death, the property would pass to his daughter, Kupayee Ammal, by succession.
He argues that according to the Mitakshara system of Hindu law, the right to inherit is determined by the degree of proximity in the relationship. It is asserted that the daughter has a closer relationship to her father than her father’s brother’s son and daughter. Therefore, she should be entitled to inherit the property from her father.
He also contended that according to Hindu law, a daughter is not prohibited from inheriting her father’s separate property. If a Hindu male dies without a son and leaves behind only a daughter, his separate property will be inherited by the daughter through succession, and it will not be transferred to the brother’s son through survivorship. The lower courts have incorrectly applied Hindu law principles and dismissed the lawsuit.
Arguments from the Respondent’s Side:
The learned counsel of the respondents argues that the property is joint family property, and that the plaintiff-appellant has not provided any evidence to show that it is Marappa Gounder’s self-acquired property. Therefore, they argue that the property should pass to the defendant, as a coparcener, upon Marappa Gounder’s death.
He further argued that the Trial Court determined that the plaintiff’s paternal uncle, Marappa Gounder, had passed away before the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 came into effect. Consequently, at the time of Marappa Gounder’s death in 1949, the plaintiff and her sisters did not qualify as heirs, and therefore, the plaintiff had no entitlement to a 1/5th share in the property. As a result, the court correctly dismissed the lawsuit.
The plaintiff’s uncle, Marappa Gounder, died in 1949. At that time, under the Hindu law that was in effect, his daughter, Kupayee Ammal, was not entitled to inherit his property. The sole heir available at that point was Guranatha Gounder, the son of Ramasamy Gounder. Once Marappa Gounder’s properties passed to Guranatha Gounder, they became his personal property and could not be subject to partition after the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956.
RATIONALE:
The Supreme Court contended that the suit property was Marappa Gounder’s separate property. Moreover, the defendants never claimed that the property was acquired with joint family funds.
It is widely recognized under customary Hindu Law and through judicial rulings that widows and daughters possess the entitlement to inherit self-acquired property or shares received during the division of a joint family property of a deceased Hindu male, who who did not leave behind a will and thus, the Court stated that “If a property of a male Hindu dying intestate is a self-acquired property or obtained in partition of a co-partner 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 this case, it has been established that the property in question was personally acquired by Marappa Gounder, even though his family was living as a joint unit when he died without a will. As a result, his only surviving daughter, Kupayee Ammal, will inherit the property through inheritance, and it will not be passed on through survivorship.
There are two schools of thought under the old customary Hindu Law regarding the order of succession to property inherited by a daughter from her father. The Dayabhaga school believes that the daughter has a limited estate like a widow and that the property will revert back to the heirs of the deceased male after her death. The Mitakshara school of thought takes an opposing stance on this matter.
The question of whether a daughter was born before or after the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 came into force is irrelevant in this case because Marappa Gounder’s daughter died after the Act came into force. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 amends and organizes Hindu law relating to the distribution of property on death of a Hindu person intestate and Section 14 of the Act explicitly states that any property owned by a Hindu woman is her absolute property.
The legislative intent behind Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was to rectify the limitation faced by Hindu women, allowing them to claim absolute ownership of inherited properties instead of limited interests. Section 14(1) converted all such limited estates into absolute estates, and their succession, in the absence of a will, follows Section 15 of the Act. If a Hindu woman dies intestate and does not have any children, the property that she inherited from her father or mother will go to her father’s heirs, whereas the property inherited from her husband or father-in-law will go to her husband’s heirs. If she leaves behind a husband or children, Section 15(1)(a) applies, and the properties, including those inherited from her parents, are shared by her husband and children. Section 15(2) ensures that the inherited property of a female Hindu dying issueless and intestate returns to its source.
Based on the established legal principle and the particular details of this case, it is estalished that the 1956 Act is applicable, as the properties in question were inherited in 1967 following Kupayee Ammal’s passing. Consequently, the daughters of Ramasamy Gounder, who fall under the category of Class-I heirs concerning their father’s estate, are likewise eligible to claim a one-fifth (1/5th) share in each of the suit properties.
INFERENCE:
The Arunachala Gounder (Dead) By Lrs. V. Ponnusamy and Ors. the case emphasizes the significant changes in legislation brought about by the Hindu Succession Act of 1956, specifically Sections 14(1) and 15, which aimed to empower Hindu women by granting them absolute ownership of limited property rights. These changes rectified historical limitations and established a clear framework for the inheritance of such properties. This ensured that property inherited by a female Hindu from various sources would be passed down to the appropriate heirs. Section 15(2) was implemented to maintain a connection between inherited property and its source. Overall, this case highlights the legal evolution aimed at promoting gender equality and providing more secure property rights for Hindu women under the law.
Surojit Shaw. (LL.B.)
JIS University, Kolkata
Reference
- https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2009/15692/15692_2009_37_1502_32676_Judgement_20-Jan-2022.pdf
- Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956
- Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956