A daughter’s entitlement to inherit her late father’s share in a Hindu Undivided Family property remains intact even if her mother enters into a subsequent marriage, the Madras High Court has ruled.
In an order issued on August 25, Justice P B Balaji affirmed that statutory disqualifications under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, apply strictly to a remarried widow and do not extinguish the inheritance rights of other preferential Class I legal heirs.
Origins of the Property Dispute
The ruling stems from a dispute over the coparcenary interest of a deceased man who was survived by his wife and daughter. Following his death, the widow remarried and did not stake any claim to his estate. The daughter, standing as his sole Class I legal heir, inherited her father’s entire share in the joint family property and subsequently dealt with the asset.
A surviving coparcener challenged the arrangement, petitioning the court with the argument that the widow’s remarriage should cause the deceased man’s share to revert to the other coparceners, expanding their respective portions. Counsel for the petitioner maintained that the daughter was not entitled to inherit her father’s share in light of the mother’s remarriage.
Opposing the plea, counsel representing the daughter argued that while remarriage may disentitle a widow, it cannot legally deprive other statutory heirs of their right to succeed to the deceased coparcener’s estate.
Statutory Limits on Disqualification
Evaluating the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, Justice Balaji explained that while the law restricts the inheritance rights of the widow of a predeceased son or brother if she has remarried by the time succession opens, that statutory embargo is confined solely to the widow.
The court noted that the coparcenary interest of a deceased son does not vanish upon such an event. Instead, it remains accessible to other preferential Class I heirs, including the children or the mother of the deceased.
The bench also rejected the petitioner’s reliance on an earlier Supreme Court ruling, pointing out that the apex court decision arose from an entirely different factual context. Justice Balaji observed that the cited precedent concerned Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, which disqualifies individuals who commit murder from inheriting property from their victims, rather than Section 24, which governs the remarriage of certain widows.
Concurring with the daughter’s position, the high court noted that the widow in this case had asserted no claim to the estate. Because the disqualification applied solely to the mother and could not be extended to her offspring, the court dismissed the petition and rejected the contention that the property reverted to the remaining coparceners.
