Author: Sanskriti Meena, a Student of Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law
BENCH:
Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice Krishna Murari
INTRODUCTION:
Indian constitution provides an extensive framework to ensure equality for all its people. Women in our country have not been afraid to file civil claims in court during the past few decades for property that they have independently acquired and inherited. The Supreme Court of India on 20 January 2022 in the case of Arunachala Gounder (dead) by Lrs. V. Ponnusamy and Ors. held that even in instances before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was passed, self-acquired property owned by a Hindu man would pass away by inheritance rather than by survivorship in the event of an intestate death. Additionally, such a Hindu male’s daughter would be eligible to inherit such self-acquired property.
FACTS:
- Gurunatha Gounder had two sons Marappa and Ramasamy Gounder. Marappa Gounder bought a property on his own in a court auction in 1938. Kuppayee Ammal was the sole daughter of Marappa Gounder she acquired the land after Marappa Gounder passed away in 1949 unfortunately she died childless in 1967.
- Thangammal the daughter of Ramasamy Gounder filed a partition claim. After death of Kuppayee all five children of Ramasamy Gounder became legal heir to the property of Kuppayee and each are entitled to an equal share of one-fifth of the estate.
- The trial court determined that Marappa died in 1949 and that the property in question will pass to his sole heir, Ramasamy Gounder by way of survivorship. The plaintiff was not entitled to initiate a complaint for partition, the Trial court ruled after reviewing the information presented.
CONTENTIONS:
Arguments from Petitioner’s side:
- The appellant contended that as Marappa Gounder bought the land in 1938 at a judicial auction, it is his own and was never regarded as shared family property. As a result, Kuppayee Ammal would inherit the property upon his death.
- The degree of closeness in a connection determines the right to inherit under Hindu Mitakshara system of law. Kuppayee was closer to her father than the son and daughter of her father’s sibling. She should be qualified to inherit her father’s property as a result.
- It was also argued that a daughter is not forbidden by Hindu law from inheriting her father’s separate property. If a Hindu man dies without leaving behind a son and only leaves behind a daughter, the daughter will get his separate property via succession. The brother’s son will not receive it through survivorship. The action was rejected by the lower courts due to improper application of Hindu law principles.
Arguments from respondent’s side:
- It was contended that the property is a joint family property and that Marappa Gounder, the plaintiff has not produced any proof that it was a self-acquired property. As a result, when Marappa Gounder passed away the defendant should become the coparcener of the property.
- It was contended that Marappa Gounder the paternal uncle of plaintiff has died before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was enacted. Because of this the plaintiff and her sisters were not recognized as heirs at the time of Marappa Gounder’s death in 1949 and as a result the plaintiff was not entitled to one-fifth portion of the property. Consequently, the action was properly dismissed by the court.
- Kuppayee Ammal did not have any right to inherit his property at that time according to the Hindu law that was in force. At the moment, Gurunatha Gounder the son of Ramasamy Gounder was the only successor available. Gurunatha Gounder became the sole owner of Marappa Gounder’s holding once they transferred to him and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 prevented them from being divided.
JUDGEMENT:
In this case, the property in dispute will pass to Marappa Gounder’s only living daughter Kuppayee Ammal by inheritance instead of survivorship as it was determined to be the self-acquired property of Marappa Gounder even though his family was still together when he passed away intestate. In contrast to the then-existing restricted estate of women, the Hindu Succession act recognizes women’s right as absolute and seeks to promote equality between men and women in areas of property. The legislature aimed to overcome the restriction that a Hindu woman faced, which was that she could inherit a life interest in the assets by enacting section 14(1) of the act. Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Inheritance Act, 1956 converted all limited estates held by women into absolute estates in line with section 15 of the Act. These properties would pass automatically in the event of a will or testament. The exclusions listed in sub-section 2 of section 158 will only apply in the case of a Hindu female who passes away without leaving any immediate heirs, such as her son or daughter or the deceased person’s offspring. Consequently, if a Hindu woman dies intestate and without a will, the assets she received from her parents would go to her father’s descendants but the assets she received from her husband or father-in-law would go to her husband’s heirs. The legislature adopted section 15(2) primarily to ensure that the inheritance of a female Hindu who dies intestate and without offspring is restored to her original owner. Consequently, the trial court’s contested judgement and decree are overturned, and the appeal is granted.
RATIONALE:
The Supreme Court stated that Marappa Gounder owned the distinct land that was in question. Furthermore, the defendants never stated that shared family finances were used to purchase the home. As a result, the court declared that if the property of a male Hindu passing away without a will is a self-acquired property or gained in partition of a family assets the same would pass on by inheritance rather than by survivorship and a daughter of such Hindu male would be entitled to acquire such property in preference to other collaterals. Widows and daughters are commonly acknowledged under old Hindu law and through judicial rulings to inherit shares acquired during the separation of a joint family property of a deceased Hindu mal who did not leave a wall behind.
In this case it has been established that Marappa Gounder personally acquired the property in question despite the fact that his family was residing together at the time of his death. Consequently, the property will pass on to Kuppayee Ammal via inheritance his sole living daughter rather than through survivorship. The aim of the new Hindu law was to provide proper rights to women which were not granted in old Hindu law. The property in question was inherited in 1967 when Kuppayee Ammal passed away making it established that the 1956 act is relevant based on the established legal principle and the specific facts of this case. As a result the daughters of Ramasamy Gounder are also entitled to a one-fifth stake in the property as they are Class I heirs.
FAQs:
Q. What was the main issue in issue addressed by the Supreme Court in the case of Arunachala Gounder (dead) by Lrs. V. Ponnusamy and Ors.?
A. Whether self-acquired property owned by a Hindu male before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 would pass by inheritance or by survivorship after his intestate death.
Q. what was the nature of the property in the case of Arunachala Gounder (dead) by Lrs. V. Ponnusamy and Ors.?
A. The nature of the property is separate property.
Q. What is section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956?
A. Section 14(1) states that any property owned by a Hindu female before or after the commencement of the act shall be held by her as absolute owner and not as a limited owner.
