Supreme Court Judgments On Ancestral Property

In the case of Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel vs. Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai (2019), the Supreme Court clarified important aspects of ancestral property under Hindu law. The Court held that property inherited by a Hindu male from his father, grandfather, or great-grandfather is considered ancestral property, meaning sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons acquire an interest in it at birth. However, property received through a will or gift from the father is classified as self-acquired property. The Supreme Court further stated that property acquired by a son through a will does not automatically become ancestral property unless there is a clear intention in the will to benefit the family. In such cases, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish that the property is ancestral.

This landmark ruling is significant when understanding Supreme Court judgments on ancestral property and the distinction between ancestral and self-acquired assets.

U.R.Virupakshaiah vs. Sarvamma & Anr (2008)

In this case, the Court referred to legal text and provided features of ancestral property. These are as follows:

• Mulla's Hindu Law defines 'ancestral property' as property inherited by a Hindu from his father, father's father or father's father's father
• The fundamental characteristic of ancestral property is that if the inheritor has sons, or grandsons or great-grandsons, they become joint owners, or coparceners, with him
• It accrues by virtue of their birth.

The Court further distinguishes between ancestral property and separate property. Separate property refers to property received from relatives aside from the father, father's father, or father's father's father.

Uttam vs. Saubhag Singh & Ors (2016)

In this case, the Court held that ancestral property ceases to be joint family property when it devolves by succession under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Arunachala Gounder (Dead) By Lrs vs. Ponnusamy (2022)

This case dealt with a property, bought by Marappa Gounder at a Court auction in 1938. The defendants admitted that this property was the absolute property of Marappa Gounder. In this case, the Court held that after the death of intestate Marappa Gounder, only one daughter Kupayee Ammal survived, and the property went to her as she was the sole surviving heir. This decision was based on the doctrine that self-acquired properties, even by a member of a joint family, devolves through inheritance rather than survivorship.

However, the Court went into a discussion about the concept of joint family property and survivorship as related to the case. The Court explained that if the property had been ancestral or joint family property, the daughter would not have inherited it. Instead, it would have devolved upon the surviving coparceners; in this case, the brother of the deceased. The Supreme Court went on to distinguish and compare the rules of succession for separate property and joint family property, and held that survivorship applies only to the latter.

K.C.Laxmana vs. K.C.Chandrappa Gowda (2022)

The Court held that in the case at hand the transfer of property falling within the definition of ancestral property under Mitakshara law, done by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant through a settlement deed/gift deed was ineffective. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the first Appellate Court and the High Court declaring the deed to be null and void.

The Court observed the following about ancestral property:

• The Court held that the property was an ancestral property within the purview of Mitakshara law to which the parties were subject, being Hindus.
• The Court held that Article 109 of the Limitation Act would permit a son to challenge alienation made by the father of the ancestral property within a twelve-year period from the date the alienee assumes possession.
• The Court held that the Karta or manager of a joint family property can alienate such property only in certain instances: legal necessity, for the benefit of the estate, or with the consent of all the coparceners.
• The Court further pointed out that the alienations made in the absence of any such qualification, as in this case where the consent of the plaintiff as a coparcener was absent, will be voidable at the instance of the aggrieved coparcener.
• The Court held that a Hindu father or a managing member of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) can gift only ancestral property for “pious purposes”.
• The expression “pious purposes” refers to a gift intended for charity or religious reasons.
• The Court held that gifts made out of love and affection do not constitute “pious purposes”, even if to somebody raised by the donor with no familial relation.
• The Court placed reliance on other decisions (Guramma Bhratar Chanbasappa Deshmukh and Ors. vs. Mallappa Chanbasappa and Anr. (1963), and Ammathayi @ Perumalakkal and Anr. vs. Kumaresan @ Balakrishnan and Ors.) to elaborate upon the restricted nature of powers of a manager in alienating the property of a joint family, and to reiterate the meaning of the expression “pious purpose”.

Therefore, the judgement delivered by the Court concluded that in the facts of the present case, alienation of the ancestral property by a gift deed was not valid because it did not include all the coparceners and failed the “pious purpose” requirement.

People Also Read : Ancestral property claim in India

Kamala Neti (Dead) Thr. Lrs. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2022)

In the present case, the Court held that the appellant, being a member of Scheduled Tribe, is not entitled to any right of survivorship by virtue of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. This is because Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act explicitly excludes female members of Scheduled Tribes from its application.

Although the Court acknowledges that exclusion of daughters of Scheduled Tribes from survivorship rights may be unfair and has no rationale in this current age, the Court observed that it is the responsibility of the legislature to change the law, not the Court’s.

It, however, directed the Central Government to examine the issue and consider withdrawing the exemption granted under the Hindu Succession Act relating to the Scheduled Tribes, which may lead to amendment. The Court hoped that the Central Government would take necessary measures, taking into consideration the right to equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The stance of the Court is in line with its previous orders in many judgments, of which the most notable can be considered to be the judgement of Mohan Koikal, where it declared that in the conflicting situation of law and equity, law should prevail. The Court maintained that while equity can help supplement the law, it cannot supplant it.

Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma (2023)

The Court held that daughters have an equal right to the ancestral property as that of the sons. Such right accrues to the daughters who are born before as well after the amendment in Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. According to the Court, the right in coparcenary is by birth and thus a father need not be alive when the amendment comes into force on 9 September 2005.

Key takeaways of the judgement are as follows:

• Daughters Equally Entitled to Rights with Sons: Daughters and sons have equal rights as well as liabilities in the ancestral property.
• Retrospective Application: The daughters shall be entitled to claim such rights even if they are born before the amendment, with effect from September 9, 2005.
• Right by Birth: The right of a daughter in a coparcenary property is obtained at birth, regardless of whether the father is alive or dead.
• Overruling Previous Judgments: This judgement overruled previous judgments that were in conflict with this interpretation.

People Also Read : Daughter's Rights in Ancestral Property

Revanasiddappa & Anr. vs. Mallikarjun & Ors. (2023)

In this case, the Court clarified the relationship between legitimacy granted to children of void/voidable marriages under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) and their rights to ancestral property under the Hindu Succession Act 1956 (HSA). The key points of the decision are as follows:

• Children Legalised Under Section 16 Are Not Automatically Coparceners: Even though these children gain legal recognition, they do not inherently become coparceners of the Mitakshara Hindu Undivided Family. This means that children would not automatically acquire any right to share in the ancestral property by birth.
• Right To Property is Limited to Their Parents' Share: The Court observed that according to Section 16(3) of the HMA, their rights to property are limited strictly to what they can inherit from their parents and have no rights to the property of any other relative.
• Their Share in Ancestral Property is Determined Through Notional Partition: The Court explained that when a parent who is a coparcener in an HUF dies, notional partition is done immediately before death to determine his share. This share, which otherwise would have been allotted to the deceased parent, is then divided amongst his heirs, including the child legitimised under Section 16.
• No right to the Larger Coparcenary Property: The Court held that the child has no right in the larger coparcenary property of which the father is a member and his brothers, etc. Their share would be limited only to the partitioner share of their parents.
• Harmonising HMA and HSA: The Court highlighted that Section 16(3) of the HMA needed to be harmonised with Section 6 of the HSA. The two sections should be read together to determine the rights of property which the legitimised child would inherit.

The Supreme Court in the case presented a clear cut approach for determining inheritance rights of children legitimised by virtue of Section 16 of the HMA, more so as an ancestral property within HUFs governed by Mitakshara law.

Overall Impact Of These Decisions

All of these judgments collectively determine the jurisprudential understanding and practical implementations of ancestral property laws in India. The key impacts are as follows:

• Ancestral vs. Self-Acquired Property: This distinction between ancestral and self-acquired properties is essential for determining inheritance rights.
• Gender Equality: The Vineeta Sharma decision brings daughters into inheritance matters and shields them from erstwhile gender-discriminatory practices.
• Limitations on Alienation: The judgments fortify the limitations on alienation of ancestral property so that the rights of the coparceners are protected.
• Evolving Nature of Ancestral Property Laws: The judgments reflect a change from traditional interpretation and understanding of Hindu law towards a more balanced view incorporating modern societal values, particularly in the context of gender equality before the law and the recognition of self-acquired property.
• Harmonisation of Statutory Provisions: Reading down the Hindu Marriage Act and the Hindu Succession Act, Courts attempted to provide uniform guidelines on rights to property, particularly for legitimised children and daughters. This aims to promote uniformity in legal principles.
• The role of the Judiciary and Legislature: The Courts recognize their inability in dealing with certain inequalities (for example, exclusions to Scheduled Tribes). It also advocated for intervention of the legislature to remove those inequalities. This shows the coexistence of judicial development and legislative action in the development of property rights.

These decisions are influencing the legal regime relating to ancestral property, bringing about equitability and consistency regarding the issue of inheritance.

Conclusion

All these decisions collectively provide a comprehensive understanding of ancestral property under Hindu Law. The Supreme Court judgments on ancestral property have reinforced coparcenary rights that were previously denied to descendants, clarified the distinction between inherited and self-acquired property, and addressed gender disparity by affirming the rights of daughters. These rulings strike a balance between traditional values and statutory reforms, ensuring that Hindu inheritance law aligns with current societal needs and legislative changes. By harmonizing tradition with legal updates, these judgments pave the way for a more egalitarian and legally sound framework for property inheritance.