Kerala High Court’s Historic Verdict Redefines Hindu Inheritance Law: “Daughters Equal To Sons In Property Rights”
In a historic verdict, the Kerala Excessive Court docket redefines Hindu inheritance legislation by declaring daughters equal to sons in property rights, successfully overruling the 1976 Act and upholding the 2005 modification for gender-equal succession.
Thanks for studying this submit, do not forget to subscribe!
KERALA: Historical scriptures honor daughters as embodiments of prosperity, but traditionally, they lacked inheritance rights beneath legal guidelines like Mitakshara and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Hindu Succession (Modification) Act, 2005 granted daughters equal property rights.
Nevertheless, in Kerala, the Kerala Joint Household System (Abolition) Act, 1975 creates a authorized battle, stopping daughters from totally benefiting from the 2005 modification. The Court docket should now handle this battle and determine on the difficulty of repugnancy between the 2 legal guidelines.
ALSO READ: Divorced Couples Can’t Divorce Their Parental Duties: Kerala High Court
Information and Background of the Case
The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 231 of 2009, filed earlier than the third Further Sub Court docket, Kozhikode, sought partition of household property. They’re daughters of defendants 1 and a pair of, and siblings of defendant No. 3.
The disputed properties initially belonged to the Nambidi Parambath Tharawad and have been partitioned amongst its members, with a share allotted to the first defendant (their father) by a registered partition deed. The 2nd defendant, because the spouse, had no possession rights, solely a declare for upkeep.
Following the enactment of the Hindu Succession (Modification) Act, 2005, the plaintiffs asserted that, as daughters of the deceased 1st defendant, they have been entitled to equal shares within the property. They challenged the validity of a Will executed by the first defendant in favor of the third defendant (their brother), claiming it couldn’t cowl the complete property, as the first defendant solely had a restricted share.
The defendants contested the go well with. The first defendant, alive on the time, claimed he validly executed the Will and argued the daughters had no declare, as he had spent cash on their marriages. The trial court docket upheld the Will and dismissed the go well with.
Nevertheless, on enchantment, the primary appellate court docket held that the Will couldn’t cowl the complete property, for the reason that 1st defendant solely had a fractional share, and granted the plaintiffs 1/twelfth share every in sure objects of the property.
Now, in second enchantment earlier than the Excessive Court docket, the plaintiffs elevate key authorized questions:
- Whether or not, beneath the Hindu Succession (Modification) Act, 2005 and as per Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020), daughters can declare equal coparcenary rights.
- Whether or not the Kerala Joint Hindu Household System (Abolition) Act, 1975 stands in battle with the 2005 Modification and is thus void beneath Article 254(1) of the Structure.
The Court docket heard arguments from each side, together with counsel for the events, the Particular Authorities Pleader, and an amicus curiae appointed by the Court docket.
Arguments by the Events
Appellant:
Sri Nirmal S., counsel for the appellants, superior 4 key arguments:
(a) The Hindu Succession (Modification) Act, 2005 grants daughters a coparcenary proper by beginning, efficient from 20.12.2004. Below Part 6(3), property devolves by succession (not survivorship), and daughters are entitled to the identical share as sons.
(b) The Kerala Joint Hindu Household System (Abolition) Act, 1975 (Act 30 of 1976), which abolished the suitable by beginning and declared deemed partition, straight conflicts with the 2005 Central Modification (Act 39 of 2005) that acknowledges such rights. This battle makes reconciliation between the 2 statutes unattainable.
(c) The Kerala Excessive Court docket had beforehand famous in WP(C) No.17530/2020 that the Supreme Court docket’s resolution in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) should be utilized based mostly on every case’s info. Therefore, this second enchantment was separated from the PIL and should now independently look at the applicability of Vineeta Sharma and handle the battle between the 2 Acts.
(d) Parliamentary intent behind the 2005 Modification clearly reveals that regardless of being conscious of the Kerala Act, the legislature intentionally prolonged coparcenary rights to daughters throughout India. This means a aware override of state laws.
Respondent:
Respondents’ Submissions by Sri. Shyam Padman, Senior Counsel:
(a) The Hindu Succession (Modification) Act, 2005 (Act 39 of 2005) doesn’t apply to Kerala as a result of the Kerala Joint Hindu Household System (Abolition) Act, 1975 (Act 30 of 1976) abolished the joint household system. With no joint household current in Kerala post-1976, the idea of coparcenary doesn’t survive.
(b) Act 30 of 1976 has been upheld constitutionally (Chellamma Kamalamma case) and carries Presidential assent, making it a stand-alone legislation unaffected by the later Central Act.
(c) From 1.12.1976, a statutory partition transformed joint household holdings into separate tenancies-in-common, making Part 6 of the 2005 Modification inapplicable to Kerala.
(d) Part 6(3) of the 2005 Modification can not override Part 4 of the Kerala Act. The Parliament didn’t expressly intend to displace the Kerala laws.
(e) The property in query was allotted to the first defendant beneath a registered partition deed, making it his self-acquired property. Due to this fact, the Will he executed in favor of the third defendant is legitimate and enforceable.
(f) Choices in Angadi Chandranna v. Shankar (2025), R. Balakrishna Warrier v. Santha Varassiar (1996), and different co-equal Bench choices maintain that Act 39 of 2005 doesn’t apply to Kerala. Any differing view should be positioned earlier than a bigger Bench.
(g) The Vineeta Sharma ruling didn’t handle statutory partitions. Therefore, it can not have an effect on the operation of Act 30 of 1976.
(h) The appellants failed to determine that the disputed property was a part of a joint household property.
Appellants’ Rebuttal by Sri. S. Nirmal:
Vineeta Sharma explicitly didn’t acknowledge statutory or deemed partition beneath state legal guidelines like Act 30 of 1976, reaffirming daughters’ birthrights in coparcenary property.
The primary appellate court docket held that the Will executed by the first defendant was not absolute, as each the first and third defendants held equal rights on the time of execution. Since no enchantment was filed in opposition to this discovering, it’s closing and binding.
Below Order XX Rule 18 of CPC, the preliminary decree declaring shares is closing except challenged by an enchantment.
The Supreme Court docket in N.V. Narendranath v. CWT acknowledged the idea of a single coparcenary, undermining the respondents’ argument that no coparcenary exists in Kerala post-1976.
Amicus Curiae:
Submissions Sri. P.B. Krishnan, Senior Counsel:
There’s a direct battle between the Kerala Act (30 of 1976) and the Hindu Succession (Modification) Act, 2005, notably regarding daughters’ coparcenary rights.
The Kerala Act doesn’t expressly abolish the joint household system; titles and preambles can not override the absence of such a provision.
Supreme Court docket’s resolution in Vineeta Sharma overrides opposite Kerala Excessive Court docket rulings and should be adopted beneath Article 141 of the Structure.
Kerala courts have beforehand upheld the continued existence of the joint household system post-1976.
The sooner Presidential assent to the Kerala Act is irrelevant after the 2005 modification. The State ought to have amended its legislation and obtained contemporary assent.
Part 6(4) of the 2005 Act protects solely registered transactions post-1976, highlighting a authorized battle that should be resolved beneath Article 254(2) of the Structure.
State of Kerala:
Sri. S. Renjith argued that the Kerala Joint Hindu Household System (Abolition) Act, 1975 and the Hindu Succession (Modification) Act, 2005 function in distinct authorized fields.
The Kerala Act offers with the construction of joint households and creates a deemed partition, whereas the 2005 Modification considerations inheritance and succession.
Since each Acts are framed beneath the identical constitutional entry (Entry 5, Checklist III – Concurrent Checklist), there isn’t any battle or repugnancy.
He relied on the Chellamma Kamalamma resolution and Supreme Court docket rulings in Gopalakrishnan C.S. and Annamma Ok.A. to help his view.
Judicial Analysis
On this case, the Kerala Excessive Court docket undertook an in depth judicial analysis of the battle between the Hindu Succession (Modification) Act, 2005 and the Kerala Joint Hindu Household System (Abolition) Act, 1975.
Justice Easwaran noticed that whereas the Kerala Act abolished the doctrine of proper by beginning and launched a statutory partition deeming members of the family as tenants-in-common, it didn’t expressly abolish the joint household system.
The Court docket highlighted that
“The 2005 Central modification to the Hindu Succession Act conferred coparcenary rights upon daughters by beginning, inserting them on an equal footing with sons. This modification was meant to carry gender parity in property rights and was handed with data of the Kerala legislation.”
Counting on Article 254 of the Structure, the Court docket held that
“The Central legislation would prevail over the inconsistent State legislation within the absence of a renewed Presidential assent post-amendment.”
The Court docket additionally overruled earlier Kerala Excessive Court docket judgments which had incorrectly held that no coparcenary rights existed in Kerala after 1976.
Citing the Supreme Court docket’s authoritative judgment in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, the Court docket reaffirmed that
“Daughters have an equal proper in joint household property and that statutory or notional partitions beneath State legislation can not defeat these rights.”
Thus, it was held that the plaintiffs (daughters) have been entitled to their lawful share within the ancestral property.
Case Title: N.P.RAJANI & ORS VERSUS RADHA NAMBIDI PARAMBATH & ORS.
RSA NO. 436 OF 2018
READ JUDGMENT HERE
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES