Madras High Court Clarifies When Women Cannot Claim Coparcenary Property Rights

Daughters of a coparcener in a Hindu family are entitled to inherit the coparcenary property, similar to a son. However, in a recent case regarding the inheritance rights of daughters under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, the Madras High Court gave a crucial clarification. The court explained that a daughter can claim equal property rights in ancestral property only if she was alive on September 9, 2005, the date of enactment of the amendment.    

A Division Bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar and Justice M. Jothiraman held that while the amendment grants daughters the same inheritance rights as sons, the benefit is available only to those who were alive on the date the amended law took effect. So, if a daughter had died before September 9, 2005, she is not entitled to the equal inheritance, and even her legal heir cannot claim coparcenary rights because the right did not accrue to her during her lifetime, per the report by The Hindu.

The court gave this clarification while hearing a family property dispute case involving the ancestral property of Murugesa Gounder, his one son and four daughters. Gounder and two of his daughters are deceased, but the dispute arose over the division of the property. Notably, one of his daughters, Anbazhagi, died in 1998, and another daughter, Sundari, died in 2019. Their father, Gounder, died in 2007.

As Anbazhagi died seven years before the amendment in the Inheritance Rights Act, 2005, she never became a coparcener as per the amended law, and thus, neither she nor her legal heirs remain entitled to get an equal share in the coparcenary property. On the other hand, Sundari’s legal heir can claim a full coparcenary share under the inheritance right because she was alive in 2005. She died in 2019, after around 14 years of the Act’s enactment.  

The court passed this ruling after detailed arguments by several senior advocates and amici curiae, to reflect on the far-reaching effect of the issue of women’s inheritances across the country. The bench also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court and various High Courts, and concluded that a daughter’s date of birth is irrelevant for determining coparcenary right, but the date of their death is important. It means that if a woman was born before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, came into force, and was alive on the date of the amendment in 2005, she can claim coparcenary rights.

The court observed that Parliament had fixed the date, September 9, 2005, as the cut-off date, and the court could not extend the benefit retrospectively. It noted that the amendment was intended to recognise family relationships ‘prospectively’ and not to resurrect the past.

Therefore, the Bench directed the ancestral property to be divided among the father, one son, and three daughters, in equal proportion of one-fifth each, leaving Anbazhagi's legal heirs ineligible. However, it clarified that they remain entitled to receive a share from their grandfather’s 1/5th share in the ancestral property. So, they are eligible to inherit a 1/25th share of the total ancestral property under the grandchildren's inheritance right and not under the coparcenary right of Anbazhagi.