Court affirms daughter's coparcenary rights in ancestral property despite her father's demise before the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act.
In a landmark judgment, the Madras High Court has upheld the rights of daughters to ancestral properties, emphasizing the implications of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The court ruled that daughters are entitled to coparcenary rights by birth, enforceable from September 9, 2005, even if their father passed away prior to this date.
The case, Sellammal v. Palanisamy and others, revolved around the dispute over properties left behind by Muthusamy Gounder, who died intestate in 1968. His daughter, Sellammal, sought her share of the ancestral property, which was contested by her brother, the first defendant, who claimed exclusive ownership through ouster and adverse possession.
The trial court had previously dismissed Sellammal's suit, concluding that the properties were ancestral and that she had no right to seek partition, as the father was not alive at the time of the 2005 amendment. However, the High Court, presided by Justice R. Sakthivel, overturned this decision, stating that the amendment conferred coparcenary rights by birth, irrespective of the father's status at the amendment's enactment.
The court further dismissed the defendants' plea of ouster, highlighting that mere possession and mutation of revenue records do not suffice to establish adverse possession against a co-owner without clear evidence of open denial of rights. The judgment also invalidated the sale deed executed by the brother in favor of a third party, ruling it as non-binding on the plaintiff's share.
This decision reinforces the progressive legal stance on women's property rights, aligning with the Supreme Court's interpretation in the Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma case, and marks a significant step towards gender equality in property rights.
Bottom Line:
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Daughter entitled to co-parcenary rights under the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, even if the father passed away before the amendment came into force on September 9, 2005. The plea of ouster and adverse possession cannot succeed without evidence of denial of rights to the co-owner in an open and express manner to their notice.
Statutory provision(s): Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Section 6, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Section 8, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 96, Order XLI Rule 1, Tamil Nadu Court-Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 Section 37.
Sellammal v. Palanisamy, (Madras) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2821114
