Read Time: 06 minutes
Justice Seshasayee wrote, "In the din of this euphoria what however, appears to have been overlooked is that other than the daughters, the widow and the mother of the deceased coparcener also figure as Class I female heirs, and the rise in status of daughters as coparceners in effect has reduced the quantum of property which the widow and the mother would get"
In a significant interpretation of the Hindu Succession Act, the Madras High Court recently highlighted how the 2005 amendment to the Act, while beneficial to daughters, inadvertently diminishes property shares for widows and mothers in Hindu families.
The bench of Justice N. Seshasayee, delivering judgment on a family dispute over ancestral property, observed that the amendment, which accords daughters equal coparcenary rights, inadvertently reduces the property share of other Class I female heirs, namely widows and mothers.
Court remarked that while the 2005 amendment represents a milestone in gender equality within inheritance laws, it has unintentionally impacted other female heirs within the family hierarchy.
The judgment was passed in a second appeal filed by two sisters challenging their father and two brothers, who had denied them equal shares in their ancestral property. The appellants argued that their father, who inherited certain properties from his father in a 1986 notional partition, had wrongfully excluded them from a settlement deed in 2008, in which he granted these properties solely to his two sons. The sisters, relying on the 2005 amendment, claimed an equal share in the ancestral assets.
The high court's judgment delved into the history of the disputed property. The appellants’ paternal grandfather had died in 1962, and in 1986, a notional partition divided his properties into three equal shares for his two sons and his own share, with his daughters receiving a cash settlement of Rs 5,000 each in lieu of property rights. Consequently, the appellants’ father acquired both his one-third share from his father’s inheritance and an additional portion from his sisters’ relinquished shares. However, in 2008, he excluded his daughters from the family property by transferring it only to his sons, claiming the property as his personal possession rather than ancestral.
In 2012, a Principal Subordinate Court in Coimbatore sided with the sisters, recognizing their right to an equal share under the amended Act. However, an appeal by their father and brothers reversed this decision in 2022, compelling the sisters to escalate the matter to a second appeal before the Madras High Court.
The high court ruled that the properties, inherited by the appellants’ father, indeed constituted ancestral property under the law and must be divided equally among all four children and their father, emphasizing that the daughters' rights could not be sidelined.
It emphasized that the legal classification of properties as ancestral or self-acquired was crucial and that the daughters’ entitlement was inherent by virtue of the 2005 amendment.
In his concluding observations, Justice Seshasayee expressed concern over the limited attention paid to the impact on widows and mothers, other Class I female heirs under Hindu succession law, whose shares are reduced due to the elevation of daughters to coparcener status.
He wrote, "In the din of this euphoria what however, appears to have been overlooked is that other than the daughters, the widow and the mother of the deceased coparcener also figure as Class I female heirs, and the rise in status of daughters as coparceners in effect has reduced the quantum of property which the widow and the mother would get".
Case Title: Vasumathi and Another Vs. R.Vasudevan and Others
Please Login or Register
