'Hindu daughters not entitled if...': Madras HC's key ruling on ancestral property rights

The Madras High Court has ruled that Hindu daughters who died before September 9, 2005 - the date on which the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 came into force - are not entitled to equal coparcenary rights in ancestral property, The Hindu reported on Tuesday. Consequently, their legal heirs cannot claim such rights through them.

A division bench of Justices N Sathish Kumar and M Jothiraman held that while a daughter's date of birth is irrelevant for acquiring coparcenary rights, she must have been alive on September 9, 2005 to avail the benefit of the amendment that granted daughters equal rights in ancestral property.

COURT EXPLAINS CUT-OFF DATE

The bench reportedly said Parliament had consciously fixed September 9, 2005 as the effective date for extending equal coparcenary rights to daughters and courts could not alter that legislative intent.

The judges observed that the legal heirs of a woman who died before the amendment came into force could not claim a benefit that she herself had never acquired.

"When the Parliament had fixed a cut-off date for conferring certain benefit, the court cannot put the clock back on time," the bench said. "The very object of conferring coparcenary right on a female is not to resurrect the past, but only to recognise an antecedent event, prospectively."

DATE OF BIRTH NOT RELEVANT

The court clarified that the date of birth of a Hindu woman does not determine her eligibility for coparcenary rights. Even women born before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, would be entitled to equal rights under the 2005 amendment, provided they were alive when it took effect.

The bench reached its conclusion after examining Supreme Court judgments as well as decisions of various High Courts on women's coparcenary rights.

CASE BEFORE THE COURT

The ruling came after a partial allowance of an appeal concerning the ancestral properties of Murugesa Gounder, who was survived by one son and four daughters.

One daughter, Anbazhagi, died in 1998 before the amendment came into force, while another daughter, Sundari, died in 2019 after Gounder died in 2007.

The court held that the ancestral property should be treated as having been partitioned equally among Gounder, his son and his three surviving daughters, with each receiving a one-fifth share.

Since Sundari died after acquiring coparcenary rights, her legal heirs would inherit her one-fifth share.

However, Anbazhagi's legal heirs would not be entitled to claim a coparcenary share because she had died before September 9, 2005.

Instead, the bench held that they would receive only 1/25th of the property, representing their share in Gounder's one-fifth interest after his death in 2007, in their capacity as his grandchildren, the report said.