New Delhi: Strengthening daughters’ inheritance rights with a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court this week struck down key provisions of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 that had blocked women from claiming a share in ancestral property. The court held that these provisions were in direct conflict with a central law—Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005—that gives daughters equal rights in such property.
Justice Easwaran S., in the order on 7 July, ruled that Sections 3 and 4 of the Kerala Joint Family System (Abolition) Act clashed with Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended in 2005.
The case arose from a 2009 partition suit filed by the female heirs of a deceased Hindu man, seeking equal rights in their father’s ancestral property, but were opposed by the male heirs who relied on the provisions of the Kerala Act to deny them a share.
The Court cited the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, which had clarified that the 2005 amendment was retrospective in effect, applying to daughters whose fathers died after December 20, 2004.
Also Read: With no PoSH, is Advocates Act an adequate substitute for legal fraternity? What lawyers have to say
How state legislation differed from central law
Under the state law, Section 3 did not allow any person—including daughters—to claim a birthright in ancestral property. Section 4 went further by treating members of a joint family as tenants-in-common, essentially deeming a partition had already taken place. However, the central law only recognises a partition if it is done through a registered document or a final court decree.
“The State Act prevents any person from claiming right by birth. But the Central legislation enables a daughter to claim such a right. Section 4 enables the members of the joint family to take respective shares of the family as tenants in common, thereby indicating that there is a deemed partition,” read the Kerala High Court’s judgment. “Sub-Section (3) of Section 6 gives a clear indication as regards the intention of the Parliament to continue with the joint family system.”
The court further said that the state enactment “recognises a statutory deemed partition”, but the central legislation “refuses to recognise any form of partition” other than through a registered document or final decree passed by the court.
“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,” the order said. “This is precisely what is imbibed under the doctrine of repugnancy enshrined under Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India.”
Can state law be in contrast to central law?
Article 254 (1) of the Indian Constitution specifically says that if there is any discrepancy or conflict between the state-enacted-legislature and central law, then the law made by the Parliament (central law) takes precedence, whether enacted before or after the state law.
“Question of repugnancy under can arise when a law framed by the State Government conflicts with the law framed by the Central Government in the concurrent list. Then Article 254(1) will apply. However, when the Central Government frames the law in the concurrent list on a subject where a State law exists, then to the extent of conflict the central enactment will prevail”, the 84-page judgment explained.
The verdict
Taking all this into account, the high court ruled that the female heirs in the present case were entitled to their rightful share. The court said, “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”.
At the same time, this judgement also removed Section 3 & 4 of the Kerala Act from effect, affirming that daughters in Kerala have the same inheritance rights as sons under the central law.
The judgment also quoted Hindu religious text Skanda purana Chapter 23 Verse 46 to highlight the high status given to daughters in Indian tradition.
One verse compares daughters to Goddess Lakshmi, symbolising prosperity and goodness, and says they should be honoured at the start of all auspicious events. Another says that having one daughter brings the same merit as having ten sons, emphasising their equal—if not greater—value in spiritual and cultural terms.
(Edited by Mannat Chugh)
Also Read: Sacred name sparks courtroom drama: What CBFC argued in affidavit opposing Janaki vs State of Kerala