Verdict

In the Supreme Court, Civil Appellate
Civil Appeal No. 6659 of 2011

Arunachala Gounder (deceased)
& his Legal Representatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appellants
Versus 
Ponnusamy & Others  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Respondents

Inheritance of ancestral/parental property has been a common cause for litigation, more so prior to the enactment of The Hindu Succession Act in 1956 [Act]. The Hon’ble Supreme Court  pronounced its verdict in one such case that has been fought by two generations.

Prior to the Act, litigation on inheritance was governed by two main concepts of Hindu Law: 

1. Daya Bhaga: Liberal system that was being practised only in Bengal and Assam.
   i) No concept of joint family; property divided individually after owner’s death.
   ii) No inheritance or partition rights until father’s death.
   iii) Daughters/Widows too can inherit property.
2. Mitakshara: Conservative system that was being practised in the rest of India.
   i) Concept of Joint Family with 4 generations of males all having simultaneous and equal ownership; ownership is joint until the property is formally partitioned.
   ii) Inheritance by birth for sons, even while father is alive.
   iii) Daughters/Widows do not have inheritance rights; Widows have maintenance rights.     

Background and Facts

• Ramasamy and Marappa are two sons of late Gurunatha Gounder. 
• Marappa bought a property in 1938, in an auction sale conducted by a local Court. 
• Ramasamy died in 1949, survived by 1 son (Gurunatha) and 4 daughters (Thangammal, Elayammal, Nallammal and Ramayeeammal).
• Marappa died in 1957, survived by only daughter (Kuppaayeeammal), after the Act came into effect. 
• Kuppaayeeammal died in 1967 without any children. 
• Marappa’s property was claimed by his brother Ramasamy’s son Gurunatha, applying old Hindu Law. 
• Original Suit No. 295 was filed in 1991 by Thangammal, Appellant 1. After her death during trial, her son Arunachala and, after his death, his sons Venkatachalam and Mottaiappan became Appellants 2,3 & 4. The appeal was for 1/5th share in the property of her uncle Marappa, after his only daughter Kuppaayeeammal died, deeming herself and her brother and sisters to be the next of surviving kin under the Act.
• In March 1994, Trial Court dismissed this original suit and ruled in favour of her brother Gurunatha.
• Appellant immediately challenged the Trial Court ruling in Madras High Court.
• Madras High Court too dismissed the appeal in January 2009. 
• Consequently, the present Appeal in Supreme Court was made by Appellants in 2011.        

Issues involved in the case

1. Who is the beneficiary of a deceased person’s property, self-acquired prior to the Act, that is intestate:
   The only daughter, by way of inheritance? Or, the brother’s son, by way of survivorship?
2. Whether the property is to be deemed as self-acquired or jointly owned by the family?
   What would be the order of succession for this property, after the only daughter’s death?

Defendants’ Arguments

• Property owner Marappa did not die in 1957 (as alleged by Appellant) but in 1949, when the (then) prevailing law was the old Hindu Law. So, after his death Marappa’s property cannot be inherited by his daughter but would pass on by law of survivorship to nearest male survivor, his brother’s son Gurunatha and, after Gurunatha’s death, to his son Ponnusamy, Respondent 1. The evidence produced by Defendants on the date of death of Marappa was accepted by both Trial Court and High Court.
• Marappa purchased the property in a Court auction sale out of the family funds and hence it was the family’s joint property. Since Marappa had no male heir, the property would pass on to his nephew Gurunatha (father of Respondents 1 to 4) who is a coparcener i.e. automatic beneficiary by birth as a male in an undivided Hindu family.
• When the Act became effective in 1956, the property already belonged to Gurunatha and Respondents 1 to 4 and hence cannot be partitioned within the family.     
• Appellants could not provide any evidence that the property was self-acquired which Marappa bought with his own funds. The property was hence deemed to be a joint family property. 

Appellants’ Arguments

• Trial Court and High Court have wrongly applied the then prevailing Hindu Law. This law does not prohibit daughters from inheriting dead father’s property in absence of a male heir.  Also, it recognises inheritance by succession rather than by survivorship in the case of a self-acquired property. 
• As per the old Mitakshara concept too, inheritance right is determined by propinquity i.e. proximity wherein daughter has greater proximity to the deceased property owner than nephews.   
• Marappa purchased the property in a Court auction sale using his own funds and hence the property was an independent self-acquired one. As such, upon his death, property would pass on to his daughter Kuppaayeeammal by succession and not to his nephew by survivorship.

Analysis & Judgment
Previous Case References: Supreme Court referred to the following previous cases during this case:

1. Pranjivandas Tulsidas v/s Dev Kuvarbai; Bombay HC, B 131
2. Tuljaram Morarji v/s Mathuradas, Bhagvandas, and Pranjivandas; ILR (1881) 5 Bom 662
3. Chotay Lall v/s Chunnoo Lall and Another; 1874 SCC Online Cal 10
4. Katama Natchiar v/s Srimut Rajah Mootoo Vijaya Raganadha Bodha Gooroo Sawmy Periya Odaya Tevar; (1863) 9 MIA 539
5. Sivagnana Tevar and Another v/s Periasami & Others; 1878 (1) ILR Madras 312
6. Ghurpatari & Others v/s Smt. Sampati & Others; AIR 1976 ALL 195
7. Lal Singh & Others v/s Roor Singh & Others; 55 Punjab Law Reporter 168 at 172
8. Gopal Singh & Others v/s Ujagar Singh & Others; AIR 1954 SC 579 
9. Devidas & Others v/s Vithabai & Another; 2008 (5) Mh.L.J. 296

• After considering the judgment passed in the previous cases as stated above and based on the acceptance of evidence furnished by the Respondents, the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that there is no dispute regarding the date of Marappa’s death which is deemed to be 1949.
• No evidence was provided by either parties in Trial Court on the nature of Marappa’s property: whether self-acquired or bought out of family fund. However, in their written statement the Respondents stated that it was the absolute property of Marappa which he bought in a Court auction sale. SC hence settled that the property was  a self-acquired, independent property of  Marappa who is its absolute owner. 
• Right of  daughter or widow to inherit property of Hindu male dying intestate whether it is self-acquired or received by him as coparcener in partition of family property is well recognised both in the old Hindu Law as well as in the Act of 1956.
• Property of male Hindu dying intestate, whether self-acquired or obtained in a partition of family property, would devolve by ‘inheritance’ and not by ‘survivorship’; a daughter of such a male Hindu would inherit such property in preference to any other surviving kin.
• In the present case, property of Marappa has been established as self-acquired. As such, his only daughter Kuppaayeeammal will become its owner by way of inheritance and not Gurunatha, Marappa’s brother’s son, by way of survivorship.
• Kuppaayeeammal died without children in 1967, by which time the 1956 Act already became effective. This Act stipulates the following provisions on inheritance rights of females:

1. Female Hindu who self-acquires or inherits any property shall be its absolute owner and not just a limited owner, as was the case prior to the Act.
2. When a female Hindu dies intestate, all types of properties owned by her shall pass on, in order of priority/sequence, to: (i) Firstly, her own sons and daughters (living and deceased) and husband            (ii) Secondly, husband’s legal heirs (iii) Thirdly, mother and father (iv) Fourthly, father’s legal heirs and (v) Lastly, mother’s legal heirs.       
3. When a female Hindu dies intestate without children or grandchildren from her deceased children, all properties that are inherited by her from her father or mother shall pass on, not to the heirs as mentioned in b) above, but to her father’s legal heirs. [This is the rule applicable in present case].
4. When a female Hindu dies intestate without children or grandchildren from her deceased children,  all properties that are inherited by her from her husband or father-in-law shall pass on, not to the heirs as mentioned in b) above, but to her husband’s legal heirs.     

Judgement
Based on the above analysis, Supreme Court set aside the Trial Court’s as well as High Court’s orders which it felt did not apply the laws correctly. Supreme Court ordered that Karuppaayeeammal’s property, which she inherited from her father and which she left intestate and without her own children, would pass on to her father’s legal heirs i.e. her deceased brother Ramasamy’s son and daughters, each getting 1/5th share. Supreme Court thus upheld the Appellants’ appeal. 

This case highlights the remedies provided by the 1956 Act to the limitations that hitherto prevailed on the inheritance rights of females in parental/ancestral property. 

For full text of the judgement:
https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2009/15692/15692_2009_37_1502_32676_Judgement_20-Jan-2022.pdf