Court affirms daughter's entitlement to ancestral property, dismisses unregistered release deed as inadmissible
In a significant ruling that strengthens the inheritance rights of daughters, the Madras High Court has upheld a daughter's entitlement to an equal share in her father's ancestral property, irrespective of whether her father was alive at the time of the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act. The judgment, delivered by Justice R. Sakthivel, in the case of Murugammal v. Andi, marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing evolution of property rights for women in India.
The case originated when Murugammal, the daughter of the deceased Venkatesa Naicker, contested her right to a portion of her father's property against her stepmother and half-siblings. The properties in question were deemed ancestral, and Murugammal sought her rightful share following the death of Naicker in 1989.
The trial court had initially ruled in favor of Murugammal, granting her a 1/5 share of the property, considering them as self-acquired by Naicker. However, this decision was challenged by the respondents who claimed the properties were ancestral. The First Appellate Court agreed with the respondents, reducing Murugammal's share to 1/10, as it considered the properties to be ancestral and joint family properties.
Upon further appeal, the Madras High Court re-evaluated the evidence, emphasizing the impact of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The Court underscored that the amendment allows daughters equal rights as sons in ancestral property, irrespective of the father's demise prior to the amendment. Consequently, the Court modified the lower courts' decrees, entitling Murugammal to a 6/25 share, calculated by adding her coparcenary share and her share in her father's portion of the property.
The judgment also addressed the issue of a release deed presented by the respondents, which purportedly relinquished Murugammal’s claims. Justice Sakthivel ruled this document inadmissible due to its lack of registration and the suspicious timing of its execution following legal notices.
This decision aligns with the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, affirming that daughters have equal rights to ancestral property by birth, and the father need not be alive as of the amendment's commencement date.
This judgment reinforces the principle of gender equality in property rights, providing a robust precedent for similar cases and highlighting the necessity for registered documentation in legal disputes over property.
Bottom line:-
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Daughter's right to ancestral property under the amended Section 6 - A daughter is entitled to equal share as that of the male heirs, irrespective of whether her father was alive as on the date of the amendment (September 9, 2005).
Statutory provision(s): Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Section 6, Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, Registration Act, 1908 Section 17, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Section 8
