Madras High Court delivers a landmark ruling on women’s rights under the Hindu Succession Act, holding that Sreedhana is a woman’s self-acquired property, not inherited from her father.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court, in a landmark ruling, has clarified the legal position on Sreedhana property under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Justice P.B. Balaji, deciding a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, held that Sreedhana property is not to be treated as inherited property but as the absolute, self-acquired property of a woman, by virtue of the explanation to Section 14 of the Act.
ALSO READ: Madras High Court: “Temple Funds Belong To Deity, Can’t Be Used For Govt Projects”
Case Background
In 1955, one Kamalammal purchased a property using her Sreedhana. She passed away in 2013, leaving behind only her husband, Kasthuri Naidu, as her sole surviving legal heir. Believing himself to be the absolute owner, Naidu executed a Will in 2013.
Subsequently, a partition suit was filed by Kanagasudha, claiming that since Kamalammal died issueless, the property should revert to the heirs of her father (i.e., her brothers’ and sister’s heirs). That suit was dismissed after the court held the husband was the rightful heir.
Later, another suit (O.S.No.36 of 2021) was filed on the same grounds by R. Vasantha, who had been a defendant in the earlier proceedings. This prompted the petitioners to approach the High Court seeking to strike off the plaint as frivolous and a re-litigation.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Under Article 142: “9 Years, 3 States, 1 Resolution”
Legal Issue
Whether the property purchased by Kamalammal out of Sreedhana should be treated as:
- Inherited property (thus reverting to her father’s heirs under Section 15(2)(a)), or
- Absolute property (thus devolving upon her husband under Section 15(1)(a)).
ALSO READ: Matrimonial Dispute| “Misunderstanding on the Concept of Mediation”: Supreme Court
Court’s Findings
- Section 14, Hindu Succession Act: The Court emphasized that the explanation to Section 14 makes it clear that Sreedhana property is a woman’s absolute property, at par with self-acquired property.
- Succession Rules: Since Kamalammal had no children, her intestate succession was governed by Section 15(1)(a), meaning her husband alone inherited the property.
- Not Inherited Property: The Court rejected the argument that the property reverted to her father’s heirs, holding that Sreedhana does not fall under the “inherited” category.
- Abuse of Process: The Bench noted that the present suit was a disguised re-litigation since an earlier decree had already settled the issue.
Court’s Observation
Justice Balaji observed:
“Kamalammal has purchased the suit property only out of Sreedhana, it becomes her absolute property and her intestate succession would be governed only by Section 15(1)(a) and would not revert back to her father’s heirs. Moreover, Sreedhana property is not to be treated as inherited property, but only as self-acquired property, in terms of explanation to Section 14 of the Act.”
Final Verdict:
- The plaint in O.S.No.36 of 2021 was struck off.
- The Civil Revision Petition was allowed.
- The Court exercised its supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, terming the suit as an “exercise in futility” and “abuse of process of law.”
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Counsel ARL.Sundaresan, Advocate Meenakshi Ganesan
Respondent: Advocate C.R.Prasanan
Case Title:
C.Venkatesan v. R.Vasantha
CRP.No.2002 of 2021 & CMP.No.15195 of 2021
READ ORDER HERE
Click Here to Read More Reports On Matrimonial Dispute