In the landmark case of Arunachala Gounder (Dead) By Lrs vs. Ponnusamy (2011), it was held that the self acquired property of a Hindu male who dies without making a will would be passed on the basis of inheritance and not by succession rules. The Supreme Court further stated that the daughter inherits such a property along with the coparcenary property to which she is entitled as per the partition.
In case a woman dies without a will then in that case the property which she had received from her father will be divided into the heirs of her father. The same has to be followed in the case of husband’s property. The property acquired by the woman from his husband’s side will be divided between the heirs of her husband.
Brief details on Arunachala Gounder (Dead) By Lrs vs. Ponnusamy (2022)
| Name of the Case | Arunachala Gounder (Dead) By Lrs vs. Ponnusamy (2022) |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-006659-006659 – 2011 |
| Dairy Number | 15692/2009 |
| Parties of the Case | Petitioner – Arunachala Gounder (Dead) By LrsRespondent – Ponnusamy and Ors |
| Equivalent Citations | Civil Appeal No. 6659 Of 2011 |
| Type of the Case | Civil Appeal |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Statutes, Provisions, Judgements Involved In the Case | Section 14 and Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. |
| Bench | Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul NazeerHon’ble Mr. Justice Krishna Murari |
| Judgement Date | 20/1/2022 |
Background of the case
Marappa Gounder is the original owner of the property. The property was bought through a court auction. When Marappa Gounder died, Kuppayee Ammal, his only daughter, inherited this property. Kuppayee Ammal later also passed away; she has no children of her own. After her death the property was inherited by the 5 legal heirs of Ramasamy Gounder who is the younger brother of Marappa Gounder. One of the heir’s was Gurunatha Gounder who was the son of Ramasamy Gounder.
Thangammal, the daughter of Ramasamy Gounder filed a case asking for a division in the property. Marappa Gounder had died in 1949 as found by the Trial Court and the property in question will go only to Ramasamy’s son as per the survivorship. This meant that there was no right to claim the property by Thangammal. Further the appeal was filed in the High Court which also agreed with the decision. Still unhappy with the results, Thangammal approached the Supreme Court.
Legal provisions involved in this case
Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Under the Hindu Succession Act, any property owned by a Hindu woman whether acquired before or after the Act will be considered as her absolute property, not a limited one. This includes property received through inheritance, gifts, partition, maintenance, personal effort, or purchase. However, if the property is received through a gift, will, court order, or similar means that clearly restrict her rights, then those restrictions will still apply.
Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956
When a Hindu woman dies without a will, her property is passed on in this order:
- First, to her children and husband (this includes grandchildren if her children passed away)
- If none of them are alive, it goes to her husband’s family.
- Then to her own parents.
- Then to her father’s relatives.
- And lastly, to her mother’s relatives.
However, there’s an exception:
- If the woman got the property from her parents, and she doesn’t have any children or grandchildren, the property will go to her father’s family, not the husband’s side.
- If she got the property from her husband or father-in-law, and she has no children or grandchildren, the property will go to her husband’s family, not her own.
Key issues before the court in Arunachala Gounder (Dead) By Lrs vs. Ponnusamy (2022)
- Whether the property bought by Marappa Gounder will be considered a joint family property or a self acquired property?
- Whether the date of death of the Marappa Gounder affects the inheritance of the property?
- Whether only male heirs will have the right to inherit the property, or daughters also have the inheritance right under the Hindu Succession Act?
- Is Hindu Succession Act applicable to this case? Whether the daughters are liable to the right to inherit?
Submission by both sides in Arunachala Gounder (Dead) By Lrs vs. Ponnusamy (2022)
Grounds raised by appellant
- The property was bought by Marappa Gounder in an auction on his own name, as it was self-acquired property.
- The appellant argued that since the property was self-acquired on it should be passed to his daughter after his death.
- The appellant referred to Mitakshara law which stated that inheritance goes to the person who is the closest relative, which is the daughter.
- A daughter has the right to inherit as per the Hindu law as well in the personal property of her father.
- So, if a hindu male dies without a will, having a daughter and no son, then the personal property will be inherited by the daughter and not to the son of his brother.
Grounds raised by respondent
- The respondent argued that Marappa Gounder bought the property, but he used family funds, so it was joint family property, not just his.
- Since it was joint property, when Marappa died without a male child, his brother’s son (a coparcener in the family) inherited the property by survivorship.
- They claimed Marappa Gounder died in 1949, before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into effect.
- At that time, under the old law, daughters had no right to inherit joint family property if there was a surviving male coparcener.
- So, the property rightly went to Ramasamy Gounder’s son, not the daughter.
Observation and judgement in Arunachala Gounder (Dead) By Lrs vs. Ponnusamy (2022)
The Apex Court took a deep look in the Hindu law and considered Smritis, precedents and Vedas in this case. One important reference was a book by Standish Grove Grady, which explained that if a man died without a son, his self-earned property would go to his widow, and if there was no widow, then to his daughter. The Supreme Court considered all the earlier court cases where the property was passed down in Hindu families. The court observed that even when they are sub-schools (schools of hindu law), there are different views on inheritance. However, all the schools of hindu law considered that a daughter has the right to inherit the self earned property of her father.
The Court also looked at earlier cases to support this idea. In Pranjivandas Tulsidas vs. Dev Kuvarbai1 Bomb. H.C., B. 131, a Hindu man died leaving behind a wife and four daughters, but also had brothers and their children. The Court said that the widow had the right to live off the property during her lifetime, and after her, the daughters had a stronger claim than the brothers.
In another old case, Katama Natchiar vs. The Rajah of Shivagunga (1863), the ruling was similar, if there was no son or widow, the daughter would inherit the father’s self-acquired property. Multiple legal commentaries also confirmed that daughters had inheritance rights and ranked higher than the sons of the man’s brothers.
The Court pointed out the Lal Singh Sukha Singh And Ors. vs Roor Singh Bela Singh And Ors. (1952), where it had earlier ruled that a daughter has a stronger right to her father’s property than distant male relatives (called collaterals). The 174th Law Commission Report also supported this, saying that Hindu daughters are rightful heirs to their father’s individually owned property.
The court in this case ruled in the favour of the daughter and stated that Marappa Gounder’s self-acquired property should be inherited by his daughter. All the principles of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 were followed. This case is a landmark ruling towards making sure that women also have the rights in the family property. The Supreme Court emphasised on Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Section transforms the limited property rights of the women into wholly owning the property by inheritance. It also looked at cases like State of Punjab vs. Balwant Singh and Ors. (1991) and Bhagat Ram (Dead) vs. Teja Singh(1999) which stressed that when a daughter inherits property, it’s important to know exactly where it came from. Otherwise, people with no real family connection to the deceased could end up getting the property.
Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 explains how the property is divided when someone dies intestate (without a will). This provision was used by the Apex Court to ensure that the property is inherited by the rightful owner.
The judgement acted as a turning point as it broke the old gender biases that people had about inheritance of property only to sons. This judgement also supported and gave fair property rights to the women.The court sends a strong message to society stating that daughters also have the equal right in the property of their father and their rights should be respected.
Takeaways from this case
This judgment by the Supreme Court sheds light on the progressive intent behind the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, particularly Section 14 (1), which gave Hindu women full ownership rights over inherited property, a right they were earlier denied. The court rightly held that since Kupayyi Ammal passed away after the enactment of the Act, the succession of her property would be governed by the new law, granting her absolute interest.
Further, the court clarified the Section 15 (2)’s application, stating that if a Hindu woman dies intestate and without children, the inherited property should return to its source from her parents’ side or husband’s side, depending on where it came from. In this case, Thangammal and the other daughters were entitled to an equal share in the property. This ruling reinforces the importance of understanding succession laws and highlights how legislative reforms continue to protect and promote the rights of Hindu women in matters of inheritance.
