“A daughter can inherit the self-acquired property of her father even prior to the commencement of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and such inherited property goes back to the source if the daughter dies issueless”

Factual Matrix:

 

The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 20.01.2022 in the matter of “Arunachala Gounder (Dead) by LR’s vs. Ponnusami & Ors.” had the occasion to deal with whether a sole daughter can inherit the self-acquired property of her father, in the absence of any other legal heir having inheritable rights before the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and if so, then what would be the order of succession to be followed after the death of such a daughter inheriting the property from her father and dying issueless herself.

 

In the present matter there were two real brothers. One of the brothers had a sole child as a daughter, whereas the other brother had five children i.e. four daughters and one son. The brother who had a sole daughter, had come into possession of a self-acquired property before he passed away in 1949. Thereafter, his sole daughter also passed away issueless in 1967, which led to one of the daughter’s (original plaintiff) of the other brother to file a suit for partition seeking 1/5th share in her deceased uncle’s self-acquired property. The said suit was contested by her real brother on the ground that their uncle had passed away in 1949 which was prior to the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and thus, by virtue of him being the sole male legal heir of their uncle, he would inherit the whole of their uncle’s self acquired property instead of his uncle’s sole daughter upon his uncle’s death in 1949. Thus, the original plaintiff cannot claim 1/5th  share of the said property.

 

The above-mentioned suit for partition was dismissed by the Trial Court vide its judgment dated 01.03.1994 in agreement with the contention of the original plaintiff’s real brother.

 

Aggrieved, the legal heirs of the deceased original plaintiff filed an appeal before the High Court of Madras which vide its order dated 21.01.2009 dismissed the same, thereby upholding the judgment passed by the Trial Court.

 

This led the Appellants to file a Civil Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India which vide its judgment dated 20.01.2022 allowed the appeal and set aside the concurrent judgments passed by the Trial Court as well as the Madras High Court.

 

Analysis of the Judgment:

 

The Hon’ble Supreme Court after analysing the two main schools of Hindu Law i.e. Mitakshara and Dayabhaga along with the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929, which was the earliest Statutory legislation dealing with Succession law came to the conclusion that even prior to the commencement of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a daughter was capable to inherit the self acquired estate of her father dying intestate.

The Supreme Court also relied on legal precedents laid down in cases such as “Katama Natchiar Vs. Srimut Rajah Mootoo Vijaya Raganadha Bodha Gooroo Sawmy Periya Odaya Taver, (1863) 9 MIA 539”, “Sivagnana Tevar and Anr. Vs. Periasami & Ors., 1878 (1) ILR Madras 312”, and “Gopal Singh & Ors. vs. Ujagar Singh & Ors., AIR 1954 SC 579” to come to the conclusion that a widow or daughter can inherit self-acquired property or share received in partition of a coparcenary property of a Hindu male dying intestate.

 

Hence, the Supreme Court held that the sole daughter of the brother who came into possession of the self acquired property, inherited the said property upon her father’s death in 1949.

 

Further the Supreme Court held that as the sole daughter who inherited the self acquired property of her father passed away issueless in 1967 i.e. after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the succession pertaining to the said property would be governed by the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. As per Section 15(2)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, if a female Hindu dies intestate without leaving any issue, then the property inherited by her from her father would go to the other surviving heirs of her father.

 

Therefore, in the present case, upon the death of the sole daughter in 1967, the property devolved upon the other surviving legal heirs of her father who were the five children of her father’s real brother. Hence, the partition suit filed by the original plaintiff should have been decreed and for that reason the concurrent judgments of the lower courts were set aside.