Daughter Entitled To Equal Coparcenary Share Even If Father's Demise Was Prior To Commencement Of 2005 HSA Amendment Act : Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has reiterated that a daughter becomes a coparcener by birth with equal rights to that of a son under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, clarifying that the coparcener father need not be alive at the time of the amendment's commencement to enable her to claim this birthright.

The Court partly allowed a second appeal filed by a daughter seeking her rightful share in her deceased father's estate, modifying the decrees of both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court to award her an ultimate 6/25th share in the suit properties.

By relying on the judgment in Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma (2020), the Bench of Justice R. Sakthivel said, "As stated supra, there is no registered partition deed and no actual partition took place between the parties before December 20, 2004. Hence, as per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma, reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1, the father need not be alive as on September 09, 2005 (Date of commencement of Act 39 of 2005) to enable the daughter to claim equal rights by birth. Hence, the Plaintiff, being the daughter of G.Venkatesa Naicker, is entitled to an equal share as that of his son – second defendant. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to 1/5 share under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956."

Advocate V. Kannan appeared for the Appellant, while Advocate S. Jothivani appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts

The plaintiff filed an original suit seeking partition and separate possession of her share in the suit properties. She claimed to be the daughter of the deceased, born through his first wife, while the first defendant was the second wife and the remaining defendants were the children born through the second marriage. The plaintiff contended that the suit properties were the self-acquired properties of her late father, who died intestate, leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendants as his legal heirs entitled to equal shares.

The Trial Court originally decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, holding the properties to be self-acquired and awarding her a 1/5th share. However, on appeal by the second defendant, the First Appellate Court modified the decree, ruling that the properties were ancestral coparcenary properties, thereby reducing the plaintiff’s share to 1/10th. Aggrieved by this reduction, the plaintiff preferred the present Second Appeal.

Contentions of the Parties

The Appellant/Plaintiff contended that the First Appellate Court erred in reversing the findings of the Trial Court without any valid legal basis. It was argued that the burden lay heavily on the defendants to prove the existence of a joint family nucleus capable of yielding surplus income to acquire such vast properties. The appellant further asserted that registered sale deeds established the father's absolute ownership and that he had alienated parts of the property during his lifetime without any objection from the co-sharers, proving the properties were self-acquired.

The Respondents/Defendants contended that the deceased was a pure agriculturist with no independent source of personal income or separate business like a provision store. It was argued that he had inherited ancestral nucleus through an earlier oral partition, and the vast extent of the plaint schedule properties could only have been acquired from the income generated by those ancestral lands. Separately, the second defendant set up a plea of ouster, claiming that the other legal heirs had disclaimed their interest by executing a release deed in his favor.

Observations and Findings

The High Court observed that the total extent of the suit properties was quite vast, whereas the purchase deeds filed by the plaintiff accounted for only a minor fraction. Since the plaintiff failed to prove that her father had any independent business or separate income, the Court held that the legal presumption operated in favor of the joint family. It said that the properties were purchased from the income derived from the ancestral nucleus, thereby affirming the First Appellate Court's finding that the properties were ancestral in nature.

The Court also observed that the purported release deed relied upon by the second defendant was an unregistered document. Under Section 17 of the Registration Act, it was held to be legally inadmissible. Furthermore, its execution arose under highly suspicious circumstances immediately following the exchange of legal notices, leading the Court to disbelieve its genuineness.

The Court observed that although the plaintiff’s marriage took place prior to the state amendment, the Hindu Succession Act was subsequently amended by Central Act 39 of 2005. Relying on the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, the Court held that a daughter is a coparcener by birth with equal rights as a son, irrespective of whether the father was alive at the time of the amendment.

"In the absence of evidence to show that G.Venkatesa Naicker had any other separate or personal income, law presumes that the properties covered under Ex.A.6 and Ex.A.7 were purchased in and out of the joint family income derived from the ancestral properties. The First Appellate Court, after considering the entire evidence available on record, rightly concluded that the suit properties are all ancestral and joint family properties", the Court said.

Consequently, the Court found that the plaintiff was entitled to an equal 1/5th coparcenary share in the joint family property by birth. Furthermore, upon the notional partition of the father's remaining 1/5th share, his portion devolved equally among all his legal heirs (the wives and children) under Section 8 of the Act.

Adding her intestate succession share of 1/25th to her coparcenary share, the High Court modified the decrees of both the lower courts and held that the plaintiff was ultimately entitled to a 6/25th share in the suit properties.

Cause Title: Murugammal v. Andi And Ors. [Neutral Citation:2026:MHC:2303]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocate V. Kannan

Respondents: Advocate S. Jothivani

Click here to read/download the Judgment