Source: Madras High Court  

Why in News? 

The Madras High Court recently discussed the impact of the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, which granted daughters equal rights in ancestral property. Justice N. Seshasayee observed that while this empowered daughters, it reduced the shares of the widow and mother of the deceased, who are also Class I heirs.  

• The court ruled that the amendment aimed to balance the interests of female heirs without altering the core principles of coparcenary or ancestral property.  
• The court further noted that the notional partition introduced by the amendment affected both the rights of surviving coparceners and the overall distribution of property. 

What was the Background of Vasumathi and Another v R Vasudevan and Others Case? 

• Two daughters filed a suit seeking partition of immovable property against their father and two brothers, claiming 1/5th share each as coparceners in ancestral property. 
• The property in question was originally allotted to their father through a partition deed (Ext. A1) dated 1st September 1986, which divided the property between him and his brother. 
• Just before the daughters filed their partition suit, their father executed settlement deeds (Ext. B1 and B2) dated 22nd August 2008, transferring the property to his two sons. 
• The sons (defendants 2 and 3) subsequently filed a separate suit (O.S. 484 of 2011) seeking an injunction to prevent their sisters from interfering with their possession of the property. 
• The daughters contested the injunction suit, arguing that their father wasn't the absolute owner and couldn't transfer their rightful shares through settlement deeds, especially since these deeds were executed after they had sent a notice demanding partition. 
• The daughters based their claim on the 2005 amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 2006 which granted daughters equal rights as coparceners in ancestral property. 
• The original partition deed (Ext. A1) contained a joint statement by the father, his brother, and their four sisters acknowledging that the properties were ancestral in nature, having belonged to one Rangasamy Chettiar. 
• Both suits were tried jointly, with the second plaintiff testifying as PW1 and producing exhibits A1 to A5, while the second defendant testified as DW1 and produced the settlement deeds (Ext. B1 and B2). 
• The core dispute centered around whether the property retained its ancestral character after the 1986 partition, and consequently, whether the daughters had rights as coparceners under the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The High Court observed that while the 2005 amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act elevated daughters to coparcener status, it inadvertently reduced the quantum of property that would otherwise vest with other Class I female heirs (widow and mother of the deceased coparcener). 
• The Court noted that Parliament, despite the amendments, has not attempted to dismantle the fundamental concepts of Hindu law such as coparcenary, ancestral property, and their inter-relationship and legal incidences. 
• The Court noted that notional partition under Section 6 serves a dual purpose:  
  • It interferes with survivorship rights of surviving coparceners. 
  • Reduces the combined holding to accommodate Class I female heirs' shares. 
• The Court interpreted that what emerges from ancestral property necessarily remains ancestral property in the hands of those entitled to hold it as such, and what remains after providing for female heirs retains its ancestral character. 
• The Court held that when a property holder consciously subscribes to a deed treating property as ancestral, they are estopped from later resiling from their stated position regarding the property's character. 
• The Court stated that without economic freedom through property rights, it would be futile to presume that women could effectively enjoy other personal rights guaranteed under the Constitution. 
• The Court observed that the right to a dignified life, when viewed through the lens of equality doctrine, requires both men and women to have substantially similar property rights to achieve identical levels of dignified existence. 
• The Court held that the father's undivided 1/3rd share along with the 1/18th share obtained from his father constituted ancestral property, making the daughters eligible as coparceners. 
• The Court determined that settlement deeds executed by the father in favor of his sons could not defeat the daughters' pre-existing rights as coparceners, which had vested upon the 2005 amendment coming into effect. 

What is Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act ,2005? 

About: 

• Under the Mitakshara law governing Joint Hindu families, a daughter of a coparcener shall become a coparcener by birth in her own right, with the same rights and liabilities in coparcenary property as a son. 
• Any property that a female Hindu acquires under this provision shall be held with coparcenary ownership rights, including the right to dispose of it through testamentary disposition (will). 
• When a Hindu dies after the commencement of this Act, their interest in joint family property shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, not by survivorship. 
• Upon such death, the coparcenary property shall be deemed divided as if a partition had taken place, with daughters receiving equal shares as sons. 
• In the case of pre-deceased sons or daughters, their share shall be allotted to their surviving children as if they were alive at the time of partition. 
• For pre-deceased children of pre-deceased sons or daughters, their share shall be allotted to their children (i.e., grandchildren of the original coparcener). 
• A coparcener's interest shall be deemed to be the share they would have received if partition had occurred immediately before their death, regardless of whether they could claim partition. 
• The Act abolishes the Hindu law concept of "pious obligation" - courts cannot recognize claims against sons, grandsons, or great-grandsons for recovering debts of their father, grandfather, or great-grandfather. 
• However, for debts contracted before the Act's commencement, creditors retain their rights to proceed against sons, grandsons, or great-grandsons, and any existing alienations remain enforceable. 
• The Act does not affect partitions effected before December 20, 2004, and cannot invalidate any disposition, alienation, partition, or testamentary disposition made before this date. 
• For the Act's purposes, "partition" means either a registered deed of partition under the Registration Act, 1908, or a partition decreed by a court. 

Legal Provision: 

Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act (as amended in 2005): 

• Equal Rights for Daughters (Sub-section 1): 
  • Daughters now have equal rights as sons in ancestral/coparcenary property. 
  • This applies by birth, just like sons. 
  • Daughters have the same rights and liabilities as sons would have. 
  • This change came into effect on 9th September 2005. 
• Property Rights of Female Hindus (Sub-section 2): 
  • Property received under this provision can be disposed of by the female Hindu through a will. 
  • She holds it with full coparcenary ownership rights. 
• Death and Succession Rules (Sub-section 3): 
  • When a Hindu dies after September 9, 2005, their property devolves by:  
    • Testamentary succession (if there's a will). 
    • Intestate succession (if there's no will). 
  • The old rule of survivorship no longer applies. 
  • Property is treated as if partition had taken place with:  
    • Equal shares to sons and daughters. 
    • Shares for children of pre-deceased sons/daughters. 
    • Shares for grandchildren of pre-deceased sons/daughters. 
• Pious Obligation (Sub-section 4): 
  • Courts can't hold sons, grandsons, or great-grandsons liable for ancestral debts based solely on "pious obligation". 
  • Exception: Debts contracted before 9th September 2005 can still be recovered under the old rules. 
• Partitions (Sub-section 5): 
  • These provisions don't apply to partitions made before 20th December 2004. 
  • Valid partitions must be either:  
    • Registered under the Registration Act, 1908 
    • Made through a court decree 
• Important Notes: 
  • The law applies retrospectively, giving daughters rights from birth. 
  • However, it doesn't invalidate partitions made before 20th December 2004. 
  • The amendment aims to remove gender discrimination in Hindu succession law. 
  • It significantly improves the property rights of Hindu women in ancestral property.