The jurisprudence surrounding a daughter’s right in a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property has undergone substantial evolution over the past few decades. With the enactment of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, a daughter was granted equal coparcenary rights as a son in Mitakshara HUF property.
However, legal conflicts emerged in states like Kerala, which had earlier abolished the concept of joint Hindu families through state legislation. In a landmark judgment delivered in N.P. Rajani & Ors. v. Radha Nambidi Parambath & Ors. (RSA No. 436 of 2018), Kerala High Court on 7 July 2025 decisively addressed this conflict and upheld the equal rights of daughters in HUF property, even in Kerala.
Background of the Case
The appellants, daughters of the deceased Chandu, filed a partition suit in 2009 seeking their rightful share in the ancestral properties initially owned by the Nambidi Parambath Tharawad. The properties were earlier partitioned through a registered deed, allotting a portion to Chandu. Following his death, a dispute arose over the validity of his Will, which had bequeathed the entire property to his son.
The daughters argued that:
- They were entitled to equal shares under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.
- The Will could not override their statutory rights in the HUF property.
The respondents (mother and brother) contested this claim by invoking the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 (Act 30 of 1976), asserting that joint family and coparcenary rights had ceased to exist in Kerala, thereby nullifying any coparcenary claim by the daughters.
Issues
- Does the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 apply in Kerala, despite the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975?
- Can a daughter claim coparcenary rights in HUF property if her father died after 20.12.2004?
- Is the Kerala State Act repugnant to the Central Act under Article 254(2) of the Constitution?
The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005: A Milestone
The 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act granted daughters equal rights by birth in HUF property. Section 6 of the Act was comprehensively revised to state:
- Daughters become coparceners by birth, like sons.
- They have equal rights and liabilities in the property.
- Succession post-2005 is governed by intestate/testamentary succession and not by survivorship.
Sub-section (5) of Section 6 saved only those partitions effected through registered deeds or court decrees before 20.12.2004.
Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975
Kerala enacted Act 30 of 1976 to abolish the joint Hindu family system and the doctrine of right by birth. Key provisions:
- Section 3: Abolished right to claim property by birth.
- Section 4: Mandated a deemed partition, converting joint tenancy to tenancy-in-common.
The respondents contended that this Act effectively nullified any coparcenary structure in Kerala, hence, the 2005 Amendment would have no application.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellants (Daughters):
- The 2005 Central Act overrides the Kerala Act under Article 254(2).
- Parliament was aware of the Kerala Act while enacting the amendment and intended to extend its benefits universally.
- The concept of a joint family still exists; only the right by birth was curtailed by the Kerala Act.
Respondents (Mother and Brother):
- Act 30 of 1976 abolished coparcenary in Kerala.
- The Will executed by the father was valid and enforceable.
- Section 6 of the amended Hindu Succession Act cannot apply where no joint family exists.
State’s Stand:
- The two Acts operate in different domains: succession (Central) v. joint family structure (State).
- No conflict exists warranting repugnancy analysis.
Role of the Amicus Curiae
The Court appointed a Senior Advocate as Amicus Curiae, who made compelling arguments:
- The Kerala Act does not contain any express provision abolishing the joint family system.
- The heading and preamble of the State Act cannot control its substantive provisions.
- Article 254(2) clearly applies due to direct conflict between Section 6 of the 2005 Amendment and Sections 3 and 4 of the Kerala Act.
Judicial Reasoning and Interpretation
Justice Easwaran S., delivering the judgment, engaged in a meticulous review:
On Repugnancy:
- The Central Act confers coparcenary rights by birth; the State Act denies them.
- This direct conflict triggers Article 254(2), making the Central law prevail.
On Continuation of Joint Family System:
- The Kerala Act does not explicitly abolish joint family structure.
- Supreme Court decisions, including Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, affirm the continuation of the joint family concept unless abolished explicitly.
On Parliamentary Intent:
- Cabinet notes and parliamentary debates from 2005 indicated that Parliament was aware of state legislations and still chose to enact overriding provisions.
On Earlier Kerala Decisions:
- The Court distinguished and declined to follow earlier Kerala HC rulings (Babu v. Ayillalath Arunapriya and Kali Ammal v. Valliyammal) that denied daughters’ rights.
On Will’s Validity:
- A father can only bequeath his share in HUF property.
- The Will cannot defeat statutory rights of daughters post-2005.
Impact of the Supreme Court’s Decision in Vineeta Sharma (2020)
The Kerala HC heavily relied on the landmark decision in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma [(2020) 9 SCC 1], where the Supreme Court held:
- Daughters have coparcenary rights by birth.
- These rights are not contingent on the father’s death or being alive on the date of the amendment.
- A notional partition does not dissolve the coparcenary.
Final Decision of the Court
The Court concluded:
- The 2005 Central Amendment applies in Kerala.
- Daughters are entitled to equal share in HUF property if the father died after 20.12.2004.
- The Kerala Act does not negate these rights.
- The Will executed by the father was only valid for his individual share.
The appeal was allowed, and the daughters were granted their rightful 1/12th share each in the partitioned properties.
Key Highlight of the Decision
Justice Easwaran S. observed:
“Therefore, it becomes evident that the provisions of the Act 30 of 1976 and the amendments caused to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 by Act 39 of 2005 are in direct conflict and therefore, after the amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, by Act 39 of 2005, it has to be said, the Act 30 of 1976 has lost its efficacy and will have to cede to the Act 39 of 2005.”
Conclusion
This decision of the Kerala High Court is a milestone in ensuring gender justice in matters of succession and inheritance. It bridges the gap between conflicting central and state laws, reinforcing the constitutional promise of equality. By upholding the rights of daughters as coparceners, the judgment aligns Kerala’s inheritance laws with the rest of India and with progressive constitutional values.
The ruling sets a strong precedent, affirming that a daughter is indeed entitled to an equal HUF share if her father dies after 20.12.2004, even in Kerala. It also provides interpretive clarity on the applicability of Central succession laws in the presence of conflicting state legislation.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams