Supreme Court Settles Inheritance Rights of Daughters in Self-Acquired Property: Arunachala Gounder vs. Ponnusamy (20 January 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 20 January 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 40
Judges: S. Abdul Nazeer, J., Krishna Murari, J.

Can a daughter inherit her father’s self-acquired property if he dies without a will? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in the case of Arunachala Gounder vs. Ponnusamy. This judgment clarifies the rights of daughters in inheriting their father’s separate property, especially when the father dies intestate (without a will). The Court examined the nuances of Hindu Law, both before and after the Hindu Succession Act of 1956, to arrive at its decision. The bench comprised of Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice Krishna Murari, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Krishna Murari.

Case Background

The case revolves around a property originally owned by Marappa Gounder, who purchased it in a court auction in 1938. The dispute arose after his death, with conflicting claims on the inheritance of this property. The primary contention was between the descendants of Marappa Gounder’s brother, Ramasamy Gounder, and the descendants of Ramasamy’s daughter, Thangammal. Thangammal, the original plaintiff, claimed a 1/5th share in the property, asserting that the property should devolve upon all the children of Ramasamy Gounder, including herself, after the death of Marappa Gounder’s daughter, Kuppayee Ammal. The defendants, descendants of Gurunatha Gounder (Ramasamy’s son), argued that the property should devolve upon them by survivorship, as per the prevailing Hindu Law before 1956.

The key point of contention was the date of Marappa Gounder’s death. The plaintiff claimed it was in 1957, while the defendants argued it was in 1949. The Trial Court and the High Court both concluded that Marappa Gounder died in 1949. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the property devolved upon Gurunatha Gounder by survivorship. The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision.

The original suit for partition was filed by Thangammal, daughter of Ramasamy Gounder, claiming a 1/5th share in the suit property. She contended that the property should be divided equally among the five children of Ramasamy Gounder, including herself, Elayammal, Nallammal, and Ramayeeammal, after the death of Kuppayee Ammal, the daughter of Marappa Gounder. The defendants, who are the legal heirs of Gurunatha Gounder, claimed that the property was inherited by Gurunatha Gounder as per the Hindu Law prevailing before 1956.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court dismissed the original suit for partition, concluding that Marappa Gounder died in 1949, and thus, the property devolved upon Gurunatha Gounder (the son of Marappa Gounder’s brother) by survivorship, as per the Hindu Law applicable at that time. The High Court affirmed the Trial Court’s decision in the first appeal, agreeing that the property would devolve upon the defendant by way of survivorship. The matter was then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court delved into the intricacies of Hindu Law, both before and after the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The court examined the Mitakshara school of Hindu Law, which governs inheritance in most parts of India, excluding Bengal. It also referred to various ancient texts, commentaries, and judicial precedents to determine the rights of daughters in inheriting their father’s self-acquired property.

Key legal provisions and concepts discussed include:

• Mitakshara Law: The primary school of Hindu law applicable in most of India, dealing with inheritance and succession.
• Survivorship: The principle where property devolves to the surviving coparceners in a joint family.
• Succession: The principle where property devolves to the legal heirs of the deceased.
• Self-acquired Property: Property acquired by an individual through their own efforts or resources, not inherited from ancestors.
• Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: This section declares that any property possessed by a female Hindu is her absolute property, not a limited estate. The section reads:
  
  “14. Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property.—(1) Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner. Explanation.—In this sub-section, “property” includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after her marriage, or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as stridhana immediately before the commencement of this Act. (2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to any property acquired by way of gift or under a will or any other instrument or under a decree or order of a civil court or under an award where the terms of the gift, will or other instrument or the decree, order or award prescribe a restricted estate in such property.”
• Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: This section outlines the general rules of succession for female Hindus. The section reads:
  
  “Section -15. General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus.—(1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in section 16,— (a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband; (b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband; (c) thirdly, upon the mother and father; (d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and (e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1)- (a) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father; and (b) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father-in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband.”
• Section 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: This section outlines the order of succession and manner of distribution among heirs of a female Hindu. The section reads:
  
  “Section 16 – Order of Succession and manner of distribution among heirs of a female Hindu. – The order of succession among the heirs referred to in Section 15 shall be, and the distribution of the intestate’s property among those heirs shall take place, according to the following rules, namely:— Rule 1.—Among the heirs specified in sub-section (1) of Section 15, those in one entry shall be preferred to those in any succeeding entry and those included in the same entry shall take simultaneously. Rule 2.—If any son or daughter of the intestate had pre-deceased the intestate leaving his or her own children alive at the time of the intestate’s death, the children of such son or daughter shall take between them the share which such son or daughter would have taken if living at the intestate’s death. Rule 3.—The devolution of the property of the intestate on the heirs referred to in clauses (b), (d) and (e) of sub-section (1) and in sub-section (2) to Section 15 shall be in the same order and according to the same rules as would have applied if the property had been the father’s or the mother’s or the husband’s as the case may be, and such person had died intestate in respect thereof immediately after the intestate’s death.”

Arguments

Arguments on behalf of the Appellants:

• The appellant argued that the property purchased by Marappa Gounder in 1938 was his self-acquired property and not a joint family property.
• They contended that upon Marappa Gounder’s death, the property should devolve by succession upon his daughter, Kuppayee Ammal, who died in 1967.
• The appellant relied on the principle of propinquity under Mitakshara law, stating that a daughter has a closer relationship and should inherit before the father’s brother’s son.
• The appellant referred to Mulla’s Hindu Law, stating that a daughter is not disqualified from inheriting her father’s separate property, and when a male Hindu dies without a son, his separate property devolves upon the daughter through succession, not to the brother’s son by survivorship.

Arguments on behalf of the Respondents:

• The respondents argued that the property was purchased by Marappa Gounder using family funds, making it a joint property.
• They contended that since Marappa Gounder died in 1949 before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, his property should devolve upon his brother’s son, Gurunatha Gounder, by survivorship, as he had no male heir.
• The respondents argued that the plaintiff and other sisters were not heirs at the time of Marappa Gounder’s death in 1949, and therefore, they were not entitled to partition.
• They also argued that the plaintiff had not established that the property was self-acquired by Marappa Gounder, and thus, it should be presumed to be joint family property.

The innovativeness of the argument by the appellant lies in emphasizing the concept of propinquity and the rights of daughters in inheriting their father’s separate property, which was not clearly established in the prevailing Hindu Law before the 1956 Act.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. What is the nature of the property, and what would be the course of succession if it is a separate property as opposed to undivided property?
2. Whether a sole daughter could inherit her father’s separate property, dying intestate? And if so –
3. What would be the order of succession after the death of such daughter?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on various authorities to reach its decision. These authorities are categorized by the legal point they address:

On the nature of self-acquired property and inheritance:

• Katama Natchiar Vs. Srimut Rajah Mootoo Vijaya Raganadha Bodha Gooroo Sawmy Periya Odaya Taver [(1863) 9 MIA 539] – Privy Council: This case established that self-acquired property descends to the widow in the absence of male issue.
• Sivagnana Tevar and Anr. Vs. Periasami & Ors. [1878 (1) ILR Madras 312] – Privy Council: Reaffirmed that succession in the case of a Hindu male dying intestate is governed by inheritance rather than survivorship.
• Gopal Singh & Ors. vs. Ujagar Singh & Ors. [AIR 1954 SC 579] – Supreme Court of India: The daughter succeeds to the self-acquired property of her father in preference to collaterals.

On the rights of daughters in inheritance:

• Pranjivandas Tulsidas Vs. Dev Kuvarbai [1 Bomb. H.C. , B. 131] – Bombay High Court: Held that daughters inherit absolutely in preference to brothers and their issues.
• Chotay Lall vs. Chunnoo Lall and Another [1874 SCC OnLine Cal 10] – Calcutta High Court: Affirmed that a daughter takes absolutely when inheriting from her father.
• Ghurpatari & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sampati & Ors. [AIR 1976 ALL 195] – Allahabad High Court: Recognized the right of daughters and daughter’s sons to succeed to the property under Mitakshara Law.
• Lal Singh & Ors. Vs. Roor Singh & Ors. [55 Punjab Law Reporter 168 at 172] – Punjab High Court: Held that daughters and daughter’s sons have a preferential claim to non-ancestral property over collaterals.
• Devidas & Ors. Vs. Vithabai & Anr. [2008 (5) Mh.L.J. 296] – Bombay High Court: Discussed the devolution of property by survivorship and succession.

On commentaries and texts on Hindu Law:

• Mulla’s Hindu Law (22nd Edition): Explained the Mitakshara and Dayabhaga systems and the modes of devolution of property.
• Standish Grove Grady’s ‘Treatise on Hindoo Law of Inheritance’ (1868): Discussed the line of descent and inheritance of self-acquired property.
• Shyama Charan Sarkar Vidya Bhushan’s ‘Vyavastha Chandrika’: A digest of Hindu Law, which includes daughters’ rights of succession.
• ‘Hindu Law and Judicature’ – from the Dharma-sastra of Yajnavalkya by Edward Roer, PH.D., M.D. and W.A. Montriou: Discussed the order of succession in the absence of male issue.
• H.S. Cunningham’s ‘A Digest of Hindu Law- As administered in the Courts of The Madras Presidency’ (1877): Explained the inheritance by daughters.

On the Hindu Succession Act, 1956:

• Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Declares property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property.
• Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Outlines the general rules of succession for female Hindus.
• Section 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Outlines the order of succession and manner of distribution among heirs of a female Hindu.

On the interpretation of Sections 15 & 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956:

• State of Punjab Vs. Balwant Singh & Ors. [1992 Supp. (3) SCC 108] – Supreme Court of India: Analyzed the provisions of Sections 15 & 16 of the Act.
• Bhagat Ram (dead) by LRs. Vs. Teja Singh (dead) by LRs. [(2002) 1 SCC 210] – Supreme Court of India: Reaffirmed the view taken in State of Punjab Vs. Balwant Singh & Ors., emphasizing the source of inheritance.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court. The Court held that the property in question was the self-acquired property of Marappa Gounder and would devolve by inheritance, not survivorship. The Court further held that a daughter is entitled to inherit her father’s self-acquired property in preference to other collaterals. The Court also clarified that since Kuppayee Ammal died after the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the succession would be governed by the Act’s provisions, ensuring that the property would devolve on the daughter’s heirs.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on the principles established in Katama Natchiar Vs. Srimut Rajah Mootoo Vijaya Raganadha Bodha Gooroo Sawmy Periya Odaya Taver [ (1863) 9 MIA 539]* and Sivagnana Tevar and Anr. Vs. Periasami & Ors. [1878 (1) ILR Madras 312]*, which clarified that self-acquired property descends to the widow (and subsequently the daughter) in the absence of male issue, and that succession is governed by inheritance rather than survivorship.
• The Court followed the rulings in Pranjivandas Tulsidas Vs. Dev Kuvarbai [1 Bomb. H.C. , B. 131]*, Chotay Lall vs. Chunnoo Lall and Another [1874 SCC OnLine Cal 10]*, Ghurpatari & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sampati & Ors. [AIR 1976 ALL 195]*, and Lal Singh & Ors. Vs. Roor Singh & Ors. [55 Punjab Law Reporter 168 at 172]*, which affirmed the right of daughters to inherit their father’s separate property.
• The Court also relied on Gopal Singh & Ors. vs. Ujagar Singh & Ors. [AIR 1954 SC 579]*, where it was held that a daughter succeeds to her father’s self-acquired property in preference to collaterals.
• The Court referred to various commentaries and texts on Hindu Law, including Mulla’s Hindu Law, Standish Grove Grady’s ‘Treatise on Hindoo Law of Inheritance’, Shyama Charan Sarkar Vidya Bhushan’s ‘Vyavastha Chandrika’, and others, to understand the historical context and principles of inheritance.
• The Court applied the provisions of Section 14, Section 15, and Section 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, to determine the order of succession after the death of Kuppayee Ammal.
• The Court reiterated the interpretations of Sections 15 & 16 of the Act as laid down in State of Punjab Vs. Balwant Singh & Ors. [1992 Supp. (3) SCC 108]* and Bhagat Ram (dead) by LRs. Vs. Teja Singh (dead) by LRs. [(2002) 1 SCC 210]*, emphasizing that the source of inheritance is important.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by a combination of factors, primarily focusing on the interpretation of Hindu Law and the application of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Court emphasized the following points:

• Self-Acquired Property: The Court determined that the property was self-acquired by Marappa Gounder, which meant that the rules of succession, rather than survivorship, should apply.
• Rights of Daughters: The Court highlighted the rights of daughters toinherit their father’s self-acquired property, aligning with both historical interpretations of Hindu Law and the modern provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
• Propinquity: The Court noted that daughters are closer relatives than collaterals, which further supported their right to inherit.
• Application of Hindu Succession Act, 1956: The Court applied the provisions of the Act, particularly Section 14, 15, and 16, to determine the order of succession after the death of the daughter, Kuppayee Ammal.
• Legal Precedents: The Court relied on various legal precedents and commentaries to support its interpretation of Hindu Law and the rights of daughters.

Sentiment Analysis:

The sentiment of the judgment is strongly supportive of the rights of daughters in inheriting their father’s self-acquired property. The Court’s language and reasoning reflect a progressive view that aligns with the modern understanding of gender equality and property rights. The judgment seeks to rectify historical injustices and ensure that daughters are not disadvantaged in inheritance matters.

Ratio of Fact to Law:

The judgment is primarily based on the application of law, with the facts of the case serving as the context for the legal analysis. The Court’s focus is on interpreting the relevant legal provisions and applying them to the specific circumstances of the case. While the factual determination of the property being self-acquired is crucial, the judgment’s core is rooted in legal principles and precedents. Therefore, the ratio of law to fact is significantly higher.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Arunachala Gounder vs. Ponnusamy is a landmark judgment that clarifies the inheritance rights of daughters in their father’s self-acquired property. The judgment is rooted in a careful analysis of Hindu Law, both before and after the Hindu Succession Act of 1956, and it provides a progressive interpretation that aligns with modern notions of gender equality and property rights. The decision is a significant step towards ensuring that daughters are treated as equal heirs in inheritance matters.

Flowchart of Inheritance