Justice P.B. Balaji, Madras High Court
Widow’s Remarriage Does Not Divest Her Daughter Of Deceased Coparcener’s Share: Madras High Court
|It was not in dispute that the widow of the deceased coparcener had remarried and was therefore not entitled to a share in her former husband's estate.
The Madras High Court has held that the remarriage of a widow does not result in the coparcenary interest of her deceased husband reverting back to the other coparceners, where the deceased coparcener is survived by other Class I legal heirs.
A Bench of Justice P.B. Balaji held, “the coparcenary interest of the pre-deceased son does not get extinguished unlike Section 25 and continues to be available to be taken by the other preferential class 1 legal heirs, say the mother or children of the pre-deceased son.”
“The embargo is only on the widow and not on other legal heirs to succeed to the estate of the pre-deceased son,” the Court said.
The Court considered the question as to whether the share of a deceased coparcener/son would go back to the other coparceners when his wife had chosen to remarry after his demise, or whether the daughter of the deceased coparcener would inherit the entire share.
The Court noted that the estate had opened prior to the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, which omitted Section 24 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a provision disentitling certain widows to inherit as widows if they had remarried.
Advocate S.Natarajan appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate N.Istiaq Ahmed appeared for the Respondents.
It was not in dispute that the widow of the deceased coparcener had remarried and was therefore not entitled to a share in her former husband's estate.
The petitioner argued that, after the widow's remarriage, the undivided share of deceased would revert to the other coparceners, thereby enlarging their shares, and that his daughter would not be entitled to a share.
The Court, however, rejected the contention.
The Court observed that Section 24, as it stood before the 2005 amendment, provided that a widow of a pre-deceased son or a widow of a brother would not be entitled to succeed to the property of an intestate if she had remarried on the date the succession opened.
In the present case, the widow did not claim any entitlement in the estate. The deceased daughter, being the only Class I legal heir, inherited his entire coparcenary interest on his demise.
The Court noted that the daughter had already dealt with the property and that a third-party interest had flown.
“In view of the above, I am unable to countenance the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the remarriage of the widow, the entire coparcenary interest of the son Venkatesan would revert back to the other coparceners and none of the Class I legal heirs including the daughter can claim right under the said deceased Venkatesan,” the Court held.
The petitioner had relied upon the Supreme Court's decisions in Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman and ors and Vellikannu v. R Singaperumal and anr.
The Court held that the reliance on Vellikannu was misplaced, as that case involved a different factual matrix and concerned Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act.
The Court noted that the Supreme Court case concerned a deceased coparcener who had become disentitled to a share after murdering his father. In that context, the son was treated as a non-existent entity and his widow could not claim any right under him.
The Bench further held that Section 25 and Section 24 operate differently. While Section 25 deals with a coparcener becoming disentitled to a share when he commits murder of his father, Section 24 only places an embargo on the widow's entitlement in the circumstances specified therein.
“I do not see any error committed by the Subordinate Court in refusing to entertain the Execution Petition filed by 4th defendant and I find no merit in this revision,” the Court held.
Cause Title: K. Duraisamy v. Dhanalakshmi (Died) & Ors.