Open Access Research Article
CASE COMMENT: ARUNACHALA GOUNDER (DEAD) BY LRS VS PONNUSAMY (2022) 11 SCC 520
Published Paper
Article Details
CASE
COMMENT: ARUNACHALA GOUNDER (DEAD) BY LRS VS PONNUSAMY (2022) 11 SCC 520
AUTHORED BY - SHAILJA SINGH[1]
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 20 January, 2022
COURT: Supreme Court of India
CASE TYPE: Civil Appeal No. 6659 of 2011
APPELLANT: Arunachala Gounder (Dead) by Legal Representatives
RESPONDENT: Ponnusamy and Others.
BENCH/ JUDGES: Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice
Krishna Murari
ABSTRACT:
Hindu classical laws limited the
estate of women; they were not absolute owners of property. The property used
to devolve among male descendants of the husband, only after the commencement
of Hindu Succession Act[4] in
1956 did this position change. Subsequently, through amendments and various
judicial pronouncements, both legislature and courts have been attempting to
eliminate discriminatory elements and practices prevalent in inheritance laws.
The court, consequently, adopted a progressive stance towards Hindu customary laws.
It maintained that even prior to the codification of Hindu personal laws and
enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, daughters possess equal rights over
their father's property. This judgment crystallised and legitimised not merely
through many texts; commentaries on law also supported this perspective with
robust judicial precedents thereby setting an objective precedent for gender
equality.
KEY WORDS: Discrimination, Hindu
Succession Act, Inheritance laws, Daughter's Equal Rights.
I. INTRODUCTION:
Under the Hindu succession law, a
woman's inheritance right used to be limited to her marriage. Inequalities also
existed between the rights of sons and daughters. However, thanks to an
amendment in 2005 in The Hindu Succession Act[5];
this gender bias has been removed now bestowing upon daughters’ identical
terms: responsibilities, obligations and privileges that were previously
exclusive only for sons. In 2005, authorities amended the Hindu Succession Act
of 1956.This revision eliminated gender discrimination within traditional
personal law, effectively broadening a daughter's entitlements previously
confined solely post-marriage. She now shares equal inheritable rights with her
brother which is an unprecedented milestone towards legal equity indeed. The
2005 amendment stipulates upon her birth, just as a son does in strict
adherence to coparcenary laws; indeed, the daughter of a coparcener
automatically becomes one herself.[6]
The case of Vineeta Sharma v.
Rakesh Sharma clarified that, even before the 2005 amendment, daughters
held equal inheritance rights to ancestral property as sons did.[7] However, confusion still persisted
about a daughter's entitlement over her father's self-acquired or separate
property and its succession order. In 2022, a divisional bench composed
of Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice Krishna Murari addressed these
issues in the landmark case Arunachala Gounder v. Ponnusamy[8].They
subsequently established an influential legal precedent. In this case, the
Supreme Court observed how a daughter's position stands regarding inheriting
the separate property of an intestate Hindu male under both Hindu personal and
customary laws.
II. BACKGROUND
AND FACTS OF THE CASE[9]:
Two sons belonged to Gurunatha
Gounder: Marappa Gounder and Ramasamy Gounder. Independently, in 1938 via a
court auction, he acquired a property. The single daughter of Marappa Gounder
bore the name Kuppayee Ammal. Marappa Gounder passed away in 1949, and Kuppayee
Ammal inherited the property. Regrettably, without bearing any children,
Kuppayee Ammal also departed from this world in 1967.
Thangammal, the daughter of Ramasamy
Gounder, initiated a partition suit. Upon Kuppayee's demise, all five children
of the late Ramasamy Gounder (namely Gurunatha Gounder; Thangammal, now
represented by her legal heir; and Ramayeeammal) along with Elayammal and
Nallammal ascended to their positions as heirs. They stood entitled each to an
equal 1/5th share.
Defendant-respondents presented an
argument: Marappa Gounder died in 1949 - a period prior to the passage of Hindu
Succession Act, 1956. Under prevailing Hindu law before this date, Gurunatha
Gounder emerged as the unique heir of all property belonging to his father,
thus inheriting those properties and maintaining possession until he passed
away. Gurunatha Gounder's death conferred the lawful ownership of the
properties onto his heirs, who are now the respondents.
The Trial Court determined that the
deceased brother of Marappa Gounder, Ramasamy Gounder's only son, would inherit
the disputed property through survivorship. Simultaneously, The High
Court of Judicature at Madras also affirmed this decision regarding
survivorship and dismissed any legal right for division by the
plaintiff-appellant over said assets, thus concluding their respective
positions.
As aggrieved by the decision, the
appellant approached the Apex Court in this matter.
III. CONTENTIONS:
A. ARGUMENTS FROM THE APPELLANT’S SIDE:
The appellant's learned counsel
argues: Marappa Gounder purchased the property at a court auction in 1938, thus
it is his private ownership and never constituted joint family property. Consequently,
upon Marappa Gounder’s demise, the law would transfer this estate to his
daughter Kupayee Ammal through succession.
It was argued that the daughter
maintains a closer bond with her father than her father’s brother's son and
daughter do. So, she should be entitled for inheritance from him, his property
specifically in this instance.
According to Hindu law, a daughter
indeed does not face any prohibition in inheriting her father's separate
property. If an unmarried Hindu man dies without leaving behind a son, but only
has one daughter as his survivor; she shall inherit his individual possessions
through succession, thus ensuring that they remain within the family lineage
rather than transferring over to the male sibling's offspring via survivorship
rights. The dismissal of this lawsuit resulted from erroneous application by
lower courts of principles within Hindu legal doctrine.
B. ARGUMENTS FROM THE RESPONDENT’S SIDE:
The respondents' learned counsel
contended: the property under dispute is joint family property. However, no
evidence has been presented by the plaintiff-appellant to substantiate that it
constitutes Marappa Gounder’s self-acquired possession. As such, they assert that
being a coparcener upon Marappa Gounder's demise, this piece of estate
should transfer over to him as defendant.
Further, his argument stood that the
Trial Court indeed determined Marappa Gounder, the paternal uncle of
the plaintiff, had deceased prior to the implementation of The Hindu Succession
Act in 1956.Thus and rightly so, the court dismissed her claim for a one-fifth
share in their property.
Marappa Gounder, the plaintiff's
uncle, passed away in 1949. The Hindu law then dictated that his daughter
Kupayee Ammal did not hold entitlement to inherit her father's property. At
that time, Guranatha Gounder, son of Ramasamy Gounder, stood as the sole
available heir. After the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 came into effect,
Marappa Gounder's properties passed to Guranatha Gounder, they then became his
personal property which was unavailable for partition.
IV. OBSERVATIONS
OF THE SUPREME COURT:
The Mitakshara School, a profoundly
influential law institution, boasts an extensive practice scope. Its
applicability spans across the majority of India with only slight deviations;
however, the fundamental principles persist uniformly. Mitakshara jurisprudence
acknowledges succession through heritage - albeit exclusively for individually
owned properties regardless of gender-identity. The Mitakshara School
integrates women as potential heirs to the self-acquired property. "The
digest of Yajnavalkya states that anything anyone acquires for themselves,
without decreasing the paternal estate - be it an increment or a gift from
friend or marriage - does not become co-heirs' possessions," Hon'ble
Court notes.[10] It also
acknowledges Manu's perspective in Vyavastha Chandrika: “A man's
daughter is equal to his son; indeed, a man treats them both as extensions of
himself.” How then can anyone else inherit his property, even if she essentially
an extension of himself continues to live?[11]
The Bengal, Benares and Mithila sub schools of Mitakshara only acknowledged
five female relatives as eligible for inheritance: the widow, daughter, mother,
paternal grandmother, and great-grandmother on the father's side.
Bands in Bombay and Madras encompassed
the daughter of the son, as well as, the daughter of a father's sister or
half-sister. The term 'bands' also included women married into these families,
stepmothers but also widows like those left by either a son or brother.
Moreover, numerous more women were classified under this broad definition at
that time; however, it is worth noting that Bombay school displayed greater
tolerance towards female heirs acknowledging their rightful claims with respect
to inheritance laws prevalent then. The foregoing considerations abundantly
establish: a daughter could have legitimately inherited her father's
separate inheritance.
Further, the Court deliberated upon
significant judgments relevant to its current adjudication. It referenced an
1863 ruling from the Privy Council in Katama Natchiar v. Srimut Rajah
Mootoo Vijaya Raganadha Bodha Gooroo Swamy Periya Odaya Tavern[12].This
judgment observed that if a Hindu male dies intestate, inheritance and not
survivorship decides succession and should an immediate male family member be
absent, ownership of his property transfers first to his widow and subsequently
onto his daughter.[13]
Some analysts indeed erred: they drew
adverse inferences from the earlier Smritis' vague references to women's
succession is a misinterpretation, overall. The Mitakshara clearly expresses an
opinion; it holds that within a family unit, women possess substantial rights
of maintenance. Therefore, with respect to this present issue, it leaves no
room for ambiguity or debate.
V. JUDGEMENT:
Asserting the suit property as
Marappa Gounder's separate asset, the Supreme Court presented a robust
argument. Additionally, never did the defendants lay claim to an acquisition of
this property using joint family funds.
Under customary Hindu Law and
judicial rulings, we widely recognize that widows and daughters have the
entitlement to inherit self-acquired property or shares received during a
division of joint family property from a deceased Hindu male who did not leave behind
his will. The court articulates this as follows: "If an intestate
male's estate includes self-acquired or co-partnered assets, it passes through
inheritance rather than survivorship; furthermore, among other collaterals,
such man's daughter holds priority in inheriting said properties."
This case establishes: Marappa
Gounder personally acquired the property in question. However, despite his
family living as a joint unit at the time of his death, without a will, it
remains non-transferrable through survivorship. Consequently, only one survivor
exists, Kupayee Ammal, who will inherit this estate via normal inheritance
protocols.
The old customary Hindu Law comprises
two divergent schools of thought regarding the property inheritance order for a
daughter from her father: The Dayabhaga school, asserting that like a widow,
she holds limited estate interest and will pass on the assets to deceased
male's heirs after death. Conversely, the Mitakshara school opposes this
perspective.
Is the relevance of whether Marappa
Gounder's daughter was born before or after the enforcement of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956 in this case; indeed, it becomes inconsequential as she
passed away subsequent to its implementation. The aforementioned legislation
amends and systematizes laws concerning property distribution upon an intestate
Hindu person's death: Section 14[14]
explicitly affirms that any property belonging to a Hindu woman constitutes her
absolute possession which is a key provision within this act.
Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession
Act, 1956[15]
embodies legislative intent to rectify limitations faced by Hindu women. It
enables them to claim absolute ownership rather than limited interests over
inherited properties. This provision converts all previously held 'limited
estates' into 'absolute estates'. Their succession follows Section 15[16]
in cases where a valid will is absent. In instances where an intestate Hindu
woman has no children at the time of her death and she leaves behind both
paternal and marital property, it stipulates that which she inherited from her
father or mother transfers back to their heirs. Similarly with respect to what
was received from either husband or father-in-law, this would pass onto
respective ‘male familial lineages. Section 15(1)(a)[17]
applies when a woman, who inherits properties from her parents, dies without
leaving behind any descendants or a will. In this case her husband and children
share the inherited property. Section 15(2)[18]
ensures that if a female Hindu dies unmarried and childless with no valid
testamentary dispositions, the source of her ancestral estate will reacquire
it.
The established legal principle and
specific case details confirm the applicability of the 1956 Act[19],
as Ramasamy Gounder's daughters inherited these properties following Kupayee
Ammal’s passing in 1967. Thus, being Class-I heirs to their father's estate
places them in eligibility for a one-fifth (1/5th) share of each suit property.
VI. ANALYSIS:
The Supreme Court, in its ruling,
actively supports Section 14[20]
of the Act's fundamental goals and purposes: specifically achieving gender
equality concerning property rights and inheritance. This decision underscores
not merely her life interest but explicitly labels a Hindu woman’s property as
her absolute possession, an assertion that elevates this section to a paramount
importance within the act's provisions and indeed it articulates one of many
crucial statements therein.
Mulla's Hindu Law, a comprehensive
analysis of the pre-Act legal system, posits that the Mitakshara law
acknowledges dual methods for transferring property ownership: survivorship and
succession. The
first covers joint family-owned properties; conversely referring to individual
ownership transfers and it is applicable when an owner disposes his/her last
owned piece of property. Mitakshara law includes women and girls as heirs in
the transfer of property by succession and their right to inherit arises from
propinquity which means the closeness of kinship. Consequently, long prior to
passing the Act, Hindu customary law acknowledged a daughter's entitlement over
her father's self-acquired property.[21]
Conversations and arguments about
gender discrimination are not new in India's patriarchal culture; indeed, they
have long been a focal point. The enactment of the Hindu Succession (Amendment)
Act in 2005 has granted Hindu women coparcenary rights which is an essential
progression towards gender equality for our nation and a significant stride
forward.
The Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh
Sharma case[22],
a landmark decision by the Supreme Court, it established the retroactive effect
of coparcenary rights for Hindu girls. It was an action widely praised and
furthermore, this ruling definitively dispelled any lingering ambiguity
surrounding these specific privileges. Despite numerous legislative and
judicial attempts to enact gender-neutral property laws, there remained no
jurisprudential clarity on self-acquired properties' rights for women. The Arunachala
Gounder case[23]
marked a turning point where Judiciary
stepped in providing all answers about property distribution among Hindu
females regarding their father's distinct assets at his intestate death.
In this decision, the Supreme Court
meticulously scrutinized both the history of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956
and Hindu customary laws' generally progressive stance (laws that recognize
women as legitimate heirs in diverse capacities). The court's commendable
verdict underscores how numerous authoritative texts, commentaries, and
judicial precedents have solidified and sanctioned a lone surviving daughter's
claim to her father's separate properties. This was even prior to passing off
the 1956 Act[24]. Furthermore,
it clarifies that application of proximity rule aligns with succession rules.
This eagerly anticipated ruling by
the nation's Apex Court will conclusively resolve any lingering questions about
Hindu women and daughters' self-acquired property rights. It is poised to
significantly enhance their socioeconomic standing.
The Supreme Court, last but not
least, scrutinized the distribution of a Hindu woman's wealth after her death
without leaving any will or direct heirs such as her son, daughter, or the
offspring of an already deceased child. This examination extended to how assets
she had acquired from her parents would be allocated under Hindu customary law
which holds divergent perspectives on inherited property division. Section
15(2) of the Act[25] steps
in here: it codifies and dictates that in this scenario her father's
descendants are entitled to claim those passed-down by birthright acquisitions and
conversely so for those received through spousal lineage (either husbandly or
paternal).
Kupayyee Ammal indeed held a complete
interest in her father's self-acquired property, as the Supreme Court
determined. Upon her passing, an event that transpired after Section 15(2) of
the Act[26]
had been enacted, this is what would have happened-
The law stipulates that such
properties return to their original owners and in this case, it refers to all
five children being equal heirs and thus becoming rightful recipients again[27].
VII. CONCLUSION:
The significance of this decision
lies in its affirmation that a daughter can indeed inherit her father's
independently acquired fortune, irrespective of whether such transmission
occurred pre-Act passage.
Furthermore, it elucidates the
legislative intent underpinning Section 15(2)[28] -
to secure returnable rights for an issueless and intestate Hindu woman's
inherited property back into the hands of its original owner. This
clarification carries critical importance: without it; not even close relatives,
but rather unrelated individuals altogether would gain entitlement over said
inheritance and a violation against fundamental principles governing proximity
relationships.
[1] 3rd Year of 5 Year LL.B.
Student, Faculty of Law, University of Lucknow, Lucknow.
[6] The Hindu Succession (Act no. 39
of 2005) s. 6.
[10] Edward Roer (tr), Hindu Law and
Judicature from the Dharma-Sástra of Yájnavalkya (Kessinger Publishing 2010).
[11] J?m?tav?hana, Two Treatises on the
Hindu Law of Inheritance (Hindoostanee Press 1810) 180.
[12] Katama Natchiar v. Srimut Rajah
Mootoo Vijaya Raganadha Bodha Gooroo Sawmy Periya Odaya Tavern, (1863) 9 MIA
539.
[13] Sivagnana Tevar v. Periasami, ILR
(1878) 1 Mad 312.
[14] Hindu Succession Act, 1956, s. 14.
[15] Hindu Succession Act, 1956, s. 14,
cl. 1.
[16] Hindu Succession Act, 1956, s. 15.
[17] Hindu Succession Act, 1956, s. 15.
cl.1, sub, cl. a.
[18] Hindu Succession Act, 1956, s. 15,
cl.2.
[21] Hindu Law by Mulla (22nd Edition).
[22] Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma,
(2020) 9 SCC 1.
[23] Arunachala Gounder v. Ponnusamy,
(2022) 11 SCC 520.
[24] The Hindu Succession Act, 1956,
No. 30, Acts of Parliament, 1956 (India).
[26] Hindu Succession Act, 1956, s. 15,
cl. 2.
[28] Hindu Succession Act, 1956, s. 15,
cl. 2.
Article Information
CASE COMMENT: ARUNACHALA GOUNDER (DEAD) BY LRS VS PONNUSAMY (2022) 11 SCC 520
Authors: SHAILJA SINGH
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/02/22
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.