The Kerala High Court has struck down Sections 3 and 4 of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 (the State Act), finding them to be repugnant to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Central Act). [NP Rajani & Ors. v. Radha Nambidi Parambath & Anr.]

In a judgment delivered on July 7, Justice Easwaran S observed that Section 3 of the State Act prevented any person from claiming a right in ancestral property by birth. But the Central legislation enables a daughter to claim such a right.

Section 4 of the State Act enabled the members of the joint family to take respective shares of the family as tenants-in-common, indicating that there is a deemed partition under the Act. However, the Central enactment does not recognize any form of partition other than through a registered document or a final decree passed by the court.

The Court, therefore, held that Sections 3 and 4 of the State Act was in direct conflict with Section 6 of the Central Act.

"Even if the finer nuances as to whether a statutory abrogation of a joint family property takes place by virtue of Section 4 or not is left as such, the moment the operation of Section 3 of the State Act is pitted against Section 6(1) of the Central legislation, there arises an irreconcilable conflict and that the collusion between Section 3 and Section 6 is so evident that in order to give effect to the provisions of Section 6(1) of the Central legislation, the State enactment has to give its way. This is precisely what is imbibed under the doctrine of repugnancy enshrined under Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India," the judgment stated.

Striking down the Sections of the State Act, the Court made it clear that daughters of Hindus who died after December 20, 2004, in Kerala, are entitled to equal share in the ancestral property and will get the benefit of the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act.

"On and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment Act), 2005, daughter of a Hindu who dies after 20.12.2004, in the State of Kerala is entitled to equal share in the ancestral property, subject to the exception provided under sub-Section (5) of Section 6 and the Explanation to sub-Section (5) of Section 6," the Court declared.

The judgment was passed on a partition suit filed by the female heirs of a Hindu man seeking equal rights in their late father's ancestral property. The male heirs fought their claim pointing to the State Act.

The Court started its judgement with a quote likening daughters to the Goddess Lakshmi, highlighting their revered status in ancient India.

“In a daughter, the goddess of prosperity resides always. She is established in her always. A daughter is glorious, endowed with all that is good, to be honoured at the beginning of every good work.”

The Court also referred to the Skanda Purana which says that one daughter is equal to ten sons.

"The statement, however, does not always stand as a true reflection of a daughter’s right when it comes to the right of inheritance to her father’s property," the Court said.

In ancient customary laws such as Mitakshara Law, daughters were not entitled to any right by birth on the ancestorial property. When the Hindu Succession Act was enacted in 1956, the position was the same.

However, the law underwent a radical change when the parliament enacted the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act in 2005, the Court observed.

However, in the State of Kerala, a peculiar situation existed because the Kerala Joint Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 stood in the way of a daughter claiming the benefit of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.

After analysing various provisions and judgments on Hindu succession, conflicts between Central and State laws, the doctrine repugnancy of laws as per Article 254 of the Constitution of India, the Court deemed it fit to strike down Sections 3 and 4 of the State Law.

Noting that the Supreme Court in its judgment in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Ors. had held that the 2005 amendment to the Central Act is retrocacting, the Court declared that the plaintiffs in this case cannot be denied their claim to the ancestral property under dispute.

The plaintiffs were represented by advocates Nirmal S and Veena Hari.

The defendants were represented by Senior Advocate Shyam Padman and advocates CM Andrews, PR Mohankumar, Boby M Sekhar, Laya Mary Joseph, Irene Paramel, and Piyo Harold Jaimon.

Special Government Pleader S Renjith and Senior Government Pleader K Denny Devassy appeared for the State.

Senior Advocate PB Krishnan assisted the Court as amicus curiae.

[Read Judgment]