Supreme Court Clarifies Daughter’s Right in Ancestral Property: Key Judgment on Hindu Succession Act

The case of Mangammal @ Thulasi & Anr. v. T.B. Raju & Ors. revolved around the partition of ancestral property and the rights of daughters under the Hindu Succession Act. The Supreme Court was asked to determine whether the daughters were entitled to claim a share in the ancestral property and whether the previous sales made by their brother were valid.

Background of the Case

The appellants, Mangammal and Indira, were the daughters of Late T.G. Basuvan and Late Smt. Sundari. The dispute involved three properties left behind by their father—two agricultural lands (Item Nos. 1 & 2) and a dwelling house (Item No. 3). The brother of the appellants, T.B. Raju, allegedly leased out the agricultural lands to third parties and later sold them without their consent.

When the lease expired, the appellants sought possession of the land, only to discover that their brother had already sold it. Aggrieved by this, they filed a suit for partition and separate possession. Their case was dismissed by the trial court and later by the District Judge. The Madras High Court also rejected their second appeal at the admission stage, prompting them to approach the Supreme Court.

Arguments by the Appellants

The appellants contended that:

• A daughter has an equal right to claim partition under the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989.
• No limitation period applies to a partition suit filed by co-sharers.
• The sales made by their brother were unlawful as they were co-owners of the property.
• The High Court erred in dismissing their appeal without proper consideration.

Arguments by the Respondents

The respondents countered that:

• The properties were legally sold to third-party purchasers, and the suit for partition had no merit.
• The daughters were not coparceners under the Hindu law applicable at the time of their father’s death.
• The partition suit was filed after an unreasonable delay and was barred by limitation.
• The appellants only sought partition to challenge the sale made in favor of third parties.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court extensively examined the amendments to the Hindu Succession Act and the rights of daughters in ancestral property.

Daughters’ Right in Ancestral Property

The Court clarified that under the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989, only unmarried daughters were recognized as coparceners. Since both the appellants were married before 1989, they were not entitled to claim partition of ancestral property as coparceners.

“Only unmarried daughters of a coparcener as of the date of the amendment could claim a share in the ancestral property. Since the appellants were married before the commencement of the 1989 amendment, they cannot claim a share in coparcenary property.”

The Court also noted that for a daughter to claim ancestral property under the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, both the daughter and the coparcener father had to be alive on the date of the amendment. Since their father had passed away in 1979, the appellants were not entitled to a coparcenary share.

Division of Property Through Succession

Despite ruling out their coparcenary rights, the Court examined whether they were entitled to a share in their father’s separate property under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. It found that after the father’s death, the property was to be divided equally among his wife, daughters, and son.

Final Share Calculation

• The mother of the appellants was entitled to 1/8 share.
• Each daughter was entitled to 1/8 share.
• The son was entitled to 1/8 share, in addition to the 1/2 share he had already obtained in a partition.

Upon their mother’s death, her share was further divided equally among the daughters and the son, increasing each daughter’s share to 1/6, while the son’s total share increased to 2/3.

Validity of Sale Transactions

The Court upheld the sale of the disputed properties but ordered that the daughters be compensated for their legitimate share. The Court ruled:

“Any sale made to third-party purchasers shall not be disturbed, but the appellants shall be entitled to compensation for their share in the properties sold.”

The compensation was to be calculated based on the market value at the time of sale, with an interest rate of 9% per annum until full payment was made.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

• Daughters married before 1989 in Tamil Nadu were not considered coparceners under the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989.
• A daughter’s right to claim ancestral property depends on both her and her father being alive at the time of the 2005 amendment.
• While daughters may not be entitled to ancestral property as coparceners, they can inherit their father’s self-acquired property under Hindu succession laws.
• Sales of property by co-sharers are valid, but affected legal heirs can seek monetary compensation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case clarifies the rights of daughters in Hindu ancestral property and the conditions under which they can claim a share. By balancing legal precedent with equitable relief, the Court ensured that the appellants received their rightful share without disrupting the legitimate sales of the property. This judgment reaffirms the importance of understanding amendments to the Hindu Succession Act and their implications on property rights.

Petitioner Name: Mangammal @ Thulasi and Anr..
Respondent Name: T.B. Raju and Ors..
Judgment By: Justice R.K. Agrawal, Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre.
Place Of Incident: Tamil Nadu.
Judgment Date: 19-04-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Mangammal @ Thulasi vs T.B. Raju and Ors. Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 19-04-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Succession and Wills
See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by R K Agrawal
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay Manohar Sapre
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category