Supreme Court clarifies daughters’ rights in ancestral property after Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 1989: Mangammal vs T.B. Raju (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 19 April 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 348
Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J. and Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

Can daughters claim a share in ancestral property if they were married before the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989 came into effect? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, clarifying the rights of daughters in ancestral property under Hindu law, particularly in the context of the Tamil Nadu amendment. This case revolves around a dispute between two daughters and their brother regarding the partition of their ancestral property. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice R.K. Agrawal and Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, with the opinion authored by Justice R.K. Agrawal.

Case Background

The appellants, Mangammal and Indira, are the daughters of the late Shri T.G. Basuvan, who passed away on December 29, 1979, and Smt. Sundari, who died on July 22, 1989. The first respondent, T.B. Raju, is their brother. T.G. Basuvan owned three properties: agricultural land (Items 1 & 2) and a dwelling house (Item 3). During their mother’s lifetime, Items 1 and 2 were leased to respondents 2 to 4 due to the irresponsible behavior of T.B. Raju. After the lease expired, the appellants requested vacant possession, but the lessees claimed they had purchased the lands from T.B. Raju. Consequently, the appellants filed a suit (O.S. No. 202 of 2003) seeking partition and separate possession of all three properties, naming their brother and the lessees/buyers as defendants.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court dismissed the suit, stating that the plaint was a creation of the first defendant (T.B. Raju) and that the plaintiffs (appellants), being puppets in his hands, were not entitled to partition. The District Judge upheld this decision. The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed the second appeal at the admission stage.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989, which introduced Section 29-A into the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. This amendment aimed to grant equal rights to daughters in coparcenary property. Section 29-A states:

“29-A. Equal rights to daughter in coparcenary property-
Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 6 of this Act,-
(i) in a Joint Hindu Family governed by Mitakshara Law, the daughter of a coparcener shall by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as a son and have the same rights in the coparcener property as she would have had if she had been a son, inclusive of the right to claim by survivorship: and shall be subject to the same liabilities and disabilities in respect thereto as the son:
(ii) at a partition in such a Joint Family the coparcener property shall so divided as to allot to a daughter the same share as is allotable to a son:
Provided that the share which a pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter would have got at the partition if he or she had been alive at the time of the partition shall be allotted to the surviving child of such pre-deceased son or of such pre-deceased daughter:
Provided further that the share allotable to the pre-deceased child of pre-deceased son or pre-deceased daughter, if such child had been alive at the time of the partition, shall be allotted to the child of such pre-deceased child of the pre-deceased son or of the pre-deceased daughter, as the case may be:
(iii) any property to which a female Hindu becomes entitled by virtue of the provisions of clause (i) shall be held by her with the incidents of coparcenary ownership and shall be regarded, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, as property capable of being disposed of by her by will or other testamentary disposition:
(iv) nothing in this Chapter shall apply to a daughter married before the date of the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment ) Act , 1989:
(v) nothing in clause (ii) shall apply to a partition which had been effected before the date of commencement of the Hindu Succession ( Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989.”

The court also considered Sections 8, 9, 10, 15, and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which deal with the general rules of succession for male and female Hindus.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The High Court erred in dismissing the suit for partition, as no limitation period applies to such suits among co-sharers.
• The dismissal of the suit based on a 12-year limitation period from the date of dispossession is incorrect, especially since there is no proof of dispossession or ouster by the respondents.

Respondent No. 1’s Arguments:

• The allegations of being a drunkard are false and intended to undermine the sale of properties to Respondents 2 and 3.
• The properties were not partitioned during their mother’s lifetime.
• The properties (Items 1 and 2) were legally sold to Respondents 2 and 3, hence, there is no basis for partition and separate possession.

Other Respondents’ Arguments:

• They are bona fide purchasers of the suit property and the appeal should be dismissed.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The key issue before the Supreme Court was:

✓ Whether any intervention of this Court is required with the impugned decision of the High Court in the light of the present peculiar facts and circumstances of the case?

The sub-issue that the court dealt with was whether the appellants could claim partition in ancestral property in view of the amendment

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed Prakash & Ors. vs. Phulavati & Ors., (2016) 2 SCC 36* to hold that the rights under the amendment are applicable to living daughters of living coparceners as on 9th September, 2005.
• The Supreme Court distinguished Danamma @ Suman Surpur & Anr. Vs. Amar & Ors, 2018 (1) Scale 657* stating that the case primarily dealt with the question of whether a daughter born before 2005 could claim a share in ancestral property, not the death of the father.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the interpretation of Section 29-A of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Tamil Nadu Act of 1989. The Court emphasized that the amendment specifically excludes daughters married before its commencement from being considered coparceners. The Court also relied on the precedent set in Prakash & Ors. vs. Phulavati & Ors., (2016) 2 SCC 36*, which clarified that the amendment applies to living daughters of living coparceners. The court also relied on the fact that the property in the hands of the father was divided between him and his son, making the father’s share his separate property. The court also considered the fact that the sale of the property to third parties had already happened.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered the argument that the appellants were entitled to a share in the property. However, the court rejected the argument that the appellants could claim partition as coparceners. The court also considered the fact that the property had already been sold to third parties and decided not to disturb the sale.

The court held that the appellants, being married before the 1989 amendment, were not coparceners and thus could not claim partition of ancestral property. However, the court acknowledged that the appellants were entitled to a share in their father’s separate property through succession. The court also held that the sale of the property to third parties should not be disturbed. The court reasoned that the appellants could be compensated for their share in the sold properties.

The majority opinion was delivered by Justice R.K. Agrawal, and Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre concurred with the same.

“only living daughters of living coparceners would be entitled to claim a share in the ancestral property.”

“the appellants were not the coparceners in the Hindu Joint Family Property in view of the 1989 amendment, hence, they had not been entitled to claim partition and separate possession at the very first instance.”

“any sale which made to Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in pursuance of two sale deeds dated 03.04.1996 and 24.08.1998 respectively shall not be disturbed anymore. In lieu of the same, the appellants shall be entitled to their legitimate share, if any, which belonged to them in such properties and which had been sold through sale deeds from Respondent No. 1 by way of money or some other property of the same amount.”

Key Takeaways

• Daughters married before the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989 are not considered coparceners.
• Such daughters cannot claim partition of ancestral property as a matter of right.
• However, they are entitled to their share in their father’s separate property through succession.
• Bona fide sales of property to third parties are generally protected, but the affected parties are entitled to compensation.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the sale of properties to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 should not be disturbed. However, the appellants are entitled to their legitimate share in the properties, which were sold by Respondent No. 1. This share is to be compensated either in the form of money or some other property of the same value, calculated based on the prevailing rate at the time of the sale deeds, along with 9% interest per annum from the date of the sale deeds until payment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that daughters married before the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989 are not coparceners and cannot claim partition of ancestral property. However, they are entitled to their share in their father’s separate property through succession. This clarifies the position of law regarding the rights of daughters in ancestral property in Tamil Nadu after the 1989 amendment. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the case clarifies the interpretation of the 1989 amendment.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, clarifying that while the appellants could not claim partition as coparceners due to their marriage before the 1989 amendment, they were entitled to their share in their father’s separate property through succession. The Court also protected the interests of the bona fide purchasers, directing that the appellants be compensated for their share in the sold properties.