Arunachala Gounder (Dead) By Lrs vs Ponnusamy

 

Arunachala Gounder (Dead) By Lrs vs Ponnusamy

 

Judges

1) S. Abdul Nazeer

2) Krishna Murari

 

Issues

·       Whether the property acquired by Kupayee Ammal through her father was self-acquired or was ancestral property.

·       The second issue was can daughters inherit the self-acquired property of their father who died intestate or devolves on their father’s heirs through survivorship?

·       Upon whom will the property of a female dying intestate devolve?

 

Facts

The succession issue was from 1969 when the only daughter of Marappa Gounder, Kupayee Amal died intestate. The suit was filed by Thanagammal, one of the four daughters of Ramasamy who is the brother of Marappa Gounder for 1/5^th share in the suit property being the children of Ramasamy.

 

Judgement

The court held that the property of MarappaGounder was self-acquired and not ancestral property.

Self-acquired property means the property acquired by one’s own means and not the property got by the ancestors.

Further, it was said that the daughter of a male Hindu dying without a will would be entitled to inherit self-acquired and also the other properties obtained in the partition by the father. Also, the first preference would be given to the daughters of the father.

The last issue was addressed as that if the Hindu female dies intestate then the property acquired by her would get back to the origin of it or we can say to the source of that property.

So, if the property acquired by the female was inherited from her mother/father then the property will get back to the legal hires of the mother/father.

And if the property is inherited from her husband/father-in-law then the property is will get back to legal heirs of the latter.

This issue was solved with consideration of Section 15(2) in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

The judgement was given with consideration of Section 14 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The section makes the property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property.

 

Conclusion

India has seen discrimination based on gender for a long time. The case deals with the same issue. Before this Supreme Court judgement, the Trial Court and the High Court held that the property should be given only to the son of Ramasamy Gounder and not to his daughters by the rule of survivorship. But the Supreme Court set aside this judgement and gave the right to the daughters to have a share in the property. It is completely irrational to divide the property between a family based on gender. Before the amendment of 2005 in the Hindu Succession Act, the property used to be divided only among the males of the family. Daughters were not considered coparceners but the amendment ruled out this basis and made daughters the legal hires. And this case clearly states some important sections of the act depicting daughters to be legal heirs of both the ancestral and self-acquired property.