Introduction

This a landmark case related to Proviso of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Facts

• Initially, the trial court determined that all the properties listed were joint family property belonging to the late Ramasami Konar and his disqualified son, the first defendant.
• However, due to the first defendant's conviction for murdering his father, he was deemed ineligible to stake any claim to the property.
• Nonetheless, the court awarded the plaintiff a decree for half of the property under the Proviso of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
• The properties mentioned in the lawsuit were the late Ramasami Konar's self-acquired assets.
• The first defendant, who was the sole son of Ramasami Konar, had the plaintiff as his wife.
• Ramasami Konar's wife (plaintiff) had previously divorced him and remarried, living separately from him.
• Consequently, plaintiff contended that as the sole survivor, she was entitled to all the properties left behind by Ramasami Konar.

Issue Involved

• Whether the wife of a disqualified heir claims for inheritance of estate of her deceased father-in-law?

Observation

• The court held that it cannot adjudicate the rights of the disqualified son, and therefore, it could not determine the rights of the plaintiff, who is his wife and derives her rights from him.
• The court deemed it essential to ascertain whether the disqualified son could inherit his late father's estate.
• Consequently, it reasoned that if the son cannot inherit, then the wife, who inherits through her husband, cannot claim the deceased father-in-law's property either.

Conclusion

• The appeal of the wife was dismissed.

Note

• Section 6 of the Hindu Sucession Act, 1956: Devolution of interest in coparcenary property.―

(1) On and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, in a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener shall,―

(a) by birth become a coparcener in her own right the same manner as the son;

(b) have the same rights in the coparcenery property as she would have had if she had been a son;

(c) be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenery property as that of a son, and any reference to a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to include a reference to a daughter of a coparcener:

Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect or invalidate any disposition or alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of property which had taken place before the 20th day of December, 2004.

(2) Any property to which a female Hindu becomes entitled by virtue of sub-section (1) shall be held by her with the incidents of coparcenary ownership and shall be regarded, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, as property capable of being disposed of by her by testamentary disposition.

(3) Where a Hindu dies after the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, his interest in the property of a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be, under this Act and not by survivorship, and the coparcenery property shall be deemed to have been divided as if a partition had taken place and,―

(a) the daughter is allotted the same share as is allotted to a son;

(b) the share of the pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter, as they would have got had they been alive at the time of partition, shall be allotted to the surviving child of such pre-deceased son or of such pre-deceased daughter; and

(c) the share of the pre-deceased child of a pre-deceased son or of a pre-deceased daughter, as such child would have got had he or she been alive at the time of the partition, shall be allotted to the child of such pre-deceased child of the pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter, as the case may be.

Explanation.―For the purposes of this sub-section, the interest of a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition of the property had taken place immediately before his death, irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not.

(4) After the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, no court shall recognise any right to proceed against a son, grandson or great-grandson for the recovery of any debt due from his father, grandfather or great-grandfather solely on the ground of the pious obligation under the Hindu law, of such son, grandson or great-grandson to discharge any such debt:

Provided that in the case of any debt contracted before the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect―

(a) the right of any creditor to proceed against the son, grandson or great-grandson, as the case may be; or

(b) any alienation made in respect of or in satisfaction of, any such debt, and any such right or alienation shall be enforceable under the rule of pious obligation in the same manner and to the same extent as it would have been enforceable as if the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 had not been enacted.

Explanation.―For the purposes of clause (a), the expression “son”, “grandson” or “great-grandson” shall be deemed to refer to the son, grandson or great-grandson, as the case may be, who was born or adopted prior to the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.

(5) Nothing contained in this section shall apply to a partition, which has been effected before the 20th day of December, 2004

Explanation.―For the purposes of this section “partition” means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 or partition effected by a decree of a court.