Introduction:

In a landmark verdict delivered by Justice Easwaran, the Kerala High Court has declared that Sections 3 and 4 of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 are repugnant to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 [Act 39 of 2005] and hence cannot prevail. The case arose out of a regular second appeal stemming from a partition suit filed by the appellants, seeking equal share in the ancestral property of their late father. The plaintiffs, daughters of the deceased, argued that under the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, they were entitled to coparcenary rights by birth, irrespective of their gender. The defendants, including family members and other interested parties, opposed the claim based on the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act and a Will allegedly executed by the deceased father. Representing the appellants was Advocate Nirmal S, while Advocate Shyam Padman (Senior Counsel) and Senior Government Pleader S. Renjith appeared for the respondents and the State of Kerala respectively. The Court had also appointed P. B. Krishnan, Senior Advocate, as Amicus Curiae to assist in interpreting the constitutional and legal issues involved.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The appellants strongly contended that the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, which grants daughters equal coparcenary rights by birth, is a central legislation that overrides any conflicting state laws. They emphasized that the 2005 Amendment was intended to ensure gender equality and eliminate discrimination against daughters in matters of inheritance. Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020), they argued that daughters acquire rights in coparcenary property by birth and not on the condition that their father be alive at the time of the amendment. The appellants also contended that the ‘deemed partition’ introduced by the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 was not valid as there was no registered partition deed or civil court decree prior to the cut-off date of 20.12.2004 as specified in Section 6(5) of the 2005 Amendment. The Amicus Curiae, P.B. Krishnan, added weight to this argument by asserting that Sections 3 and 4 of the Kerala Act were in direct conflict with the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act and must yield under Article 254(1) of the Constitution.

On the other hand, the respondents argued that the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975, having received Presidential assent in 1976, was valid and operational law within the State of Kerala. They relied on the earlier Kerala High Court decision in Chellamma Kamalamma v. Narayana Pillai J [1993 KHC 35] which had upheld the constitutional validity of the State Act. It was further submitted that the 1975 Act abolished the joint family system in Kerala and introduced a tenancy-in-common system, thereby negating the very basis for coparcenary claims. The defendants also cited a Will purportedly executed by the deceased father in their favor to assert their exclusive right over the property. The Special Government Pleader argued that the two enactments dealt with different subject matters: while the Kerala Act abolished the joint family system, the Central Act dealt with succession, thus the question of repugnancy did not arise.

Court’s Judgement:

In a well-reasoned and constitutionally grounded decision, Justice Easwaran held that the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 does not survive the constitutional test of repugnancy in light of the 2005 Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act. The Court began its judgment by invoking verses from Hindu scriptures extolling the virtue of daughters, highlighting the intention of the legislature to treat daughters at par with sons in matters of succession. The Court observed that while the Kerala Act may have created a deemed partition and tenancy-in-common structure, it did not effectively abolish the joint family system or the concept of coparcenary.

Referring to Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, the Court reiterated that coparcenary rights are acquired by birth and are not contingent on the father being alive as of the amendment date. The Supreme Court had categorically held that no notional or statutory partition is valid unless evidenced by a registered deed or a court decree prior to 20.12.2004. As no such partition had occurred in the present case, the Court held that the plaintiffs, as daughters, were entitled to equal shares as coparceners.

Justice Easwaran underscored that Parliament, while enacting the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, intended to occupy the entire legislative field of ‘succession’ and ‘joint family’ under Entry 5 of List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Therefore, the State law, even if earlier and supported by Presidential assent, cannot prevail when it conflicts with a later Central law that seeks to occupy the same field. The Court distinguished the earlier Kerala High Court judgment in Chellamma Kamalamma by observing that it did not address the repugnancy from the lens of the 2005 amendment and the Vineeta Sharma ruling. Consequently, previous decisions such as Babu v. Ayillalath Arunapriya (2012) and Kali Ammal & Anr. v. Valliyammal & Ors. (2016) were declared ineffective in the current legal context.

The Court further cited the 174th Law Commission Report which noted the deficiencies in the Kerala legislation, particularly in protecting the rights of daughters and widows from testamentary dispossession and alienation of property. It observed that despite its title, the 1975 Kerala Act did not abolish the joint family system; rather, it merely altered the mode of holding the property. The judgment stressed that coparcenary and joint family are two sides of the same coin and cannot be bifurcated for legislative convenience. Justice Easwaran also held that the Will produced by the defendants could not defeat the statutory rights of the plaintiffs, especially when the Will itself could not override coparcenary rights conferred by law.

With these detailed observations, the Court held that daughters of a Hindu father who died after 20.12.2004 in the State of Kerala are entitled to equal shares in ancestral property, subject to the exceptions under Section 6(5) of the Hindu Succession Act, 2005. The Court declared Sections 3 and 4 of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975, to be ineffective and unenforceable due to their repugnancy with the central legislation. The Court’s pronouncement is a progressive step affirming gender justice and equal inheritance rights for daughters in the State of Kerala.