In a historic verdict, the Kerala High Court redefines Hindu inheritance law by declaring daughters equal to sons in property rights, effectively overruling the 1976 Act and upholding the 2005 amendment for gender-equal succession.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
KERALA: Ancient scriptures honor daughters as embodiments of prosperity, yet historically, they lacked inheritance rights under laws like Mitakshara and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 granted daughters equal property rights.
However, in Kerala, the Kerala Joint Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 creates a legal conflict, preventing daughters from fully benefiting from the 2005 amendment. The Court must now address this conflict and decide on the issue of repugnancy between the two laws.
ALSO READ: Divorced Couples Can’t Divorce Their Parental Duties: Kerala High Court
Facts and Background of the Case
The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 231 of 2009, filed before the 3rd Additional Sub Court, Kozhikode, sought partition of family property. They are daughters of defendants 1 and 2, and siblings of defendant No. 3.
The disputed properties originally belonged to the Nambidi Parambath Tharawad and were partitioned among its members, with a share allotted to the 1st defendant (their father) through a registered partition deed. The 2nd defendant, as the wife, had no ownership rights, only a claim for maintenance.
Following the enactment of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, the plaintiffs asserted that, as daughters of the deceased 1st defendant, they were entitled to equal shares in the property. They challenged the validity of a Will executed by the 1st defendant in favor of the 3rd defendant (their brother), claiming it could not cover the entire property, as the 1st defendant only had a limited share.
The defendants contested the suit. The 1st defendant, alive at the time, claimed he validly executed the Will and argued the daughters had no claim, as he had spent money on their marriages. The trial court upheld the Will and dismissed the suit.
However, on appeal, the first appellate court held that the Will could not cover the entire property, since the 1st defendant only had a fractional share, and granted the plaintiffs 1/12th share each in certain items of the property.
Now, in second appeal before the High Court, the plaintiffs raise key legal questions:
- Whether, under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 and as per Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020), daughters can claim equal coparcenary rights.
- Whether the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 stands in conflict with the 2005 Amendment and is thus void under Article 254(1) of the Constitution.
The Court heard arguments from both sides, including counsel for the parties, the Special Government Pleader, and an amicus curiae appointed by the Court.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellant:
Sri Nirmal S., counsel for the appellants, advanced four key arguments:
(a) The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 grants daughters a coparcenary right by birth, effective from 20.12.2004. Under Section 6(3), property devolves by succession (not survivorship), and daughters are entitled to the same share as sons.
(b) The Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 (Act 30 of 1976), which abolished the right by birth and declared deemed partition, directly conflicts with the 2005 Central Amendment (Act 39 of 2005) that recognizes such rights. This conflict makes reconciliation between the two statutes impossible.
(c) The Kerala High Court had previously noted in WP(C) No.17530/2020 that the Supreme Court’s decision in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) must be applied based on each case’s facts. Hence, this second appeal was separated from the PIL and must now independently examine the applicability of Vineeta Sharma and address the conflict between the two Acts.
(d) Parliamentary intent behind the 2005 Amendment clearly shows that despite being aware of the Kerala Act, the legislature deliberately extended coparcenary rights to daughters across India. This indicates a conscious override of state legislation.
Respondent:
Respondents’ Submissions by Sri. Shyam Padman, Senior Counsel:
(a) The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Act 39 of 2005) does not apply to Kerala because the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 (Act 30 of 1976) abolished the joint family system. With no joint family existing in Kerala post-1976, the concept of coparcenary does not survive.
(b) Act 30 of 1976 has been upheld constitutionally (Chellamma Kamalamma case) and carries Presidential assent, making it a stand-alone law unaffected by the later Central Act.
(c) From 1.12.1976, a statutory partition converted joint family holdings into separate tenancies-in-common, making Section 6 of the 2005 Amendment inapplicable to Kerala.
(d) Section 6(3) of the 2005 Amendment cannot override Section 4 of the Kerala Act. The Parliament did not expressly intend to displace the Kerala legislation.
(e) The property in question was allotted to the 1st defendant under a registered partition deed, making it his self-acquired property. Therefore, the Will he executed in favor of the 3rd defendant is valid and enforceable.
(f) Decisions in Angadi Chandranna v. Shankar (2025), R. Balakrishna Warrier v. Santha Varassiar (1996), and other co-equal Bench decisions hold that Act 39 of 2005 does not apply to Kerala. Any differing view must be placed before a larger Bench.
(g) The Vineeta Sharma ruling did not address statutory partitions. Hence, it cannot affect the operation of Act 30 of 1976.
(h) The appellants failed to establish that the disputed property was part of a joint family estate.
Appellants’ Rebuttal by Sri. S. Nirmal:
Vineeta Sharma explicitly did not recognize statutory or deemed partition under state laws like Act 30 of 1976, reaffirming daughters’ birthrights in coparcenary property.
The first appellate court held that the Will executed by the 1st defendant was not absolute, as both the 1st and 3rd defendants held equal rights at the time of execution. Since no appeal was filed against this finding, it is final and binding.
Under Order XX Rule 18 of CPC, the preliminary decree declaring shares is final unless challenged through an appeal.
The Supreme Court in N.V. Narendranath v. CWT recognized the concept of a single coparcenary, undermining the respondents’ argument that no coparcenary exists in Kerala post-1976.
Amicus Curiae:
Submissions Sri. P.B. Krishnan, Senior Counsel:
There is a direct conflict between the Kerala Act (30 of 1976) and the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, particularly concerning daughters’ coparcenary rights.
The Kerala Act does not expressly abolish the joint family system; titles and preambles cannot override the absence of such a provision.
Supreme Court’s decision in Vineeta Sharma overrides contrary Kerala High Court rulings and must be followed under Article 141 of the Constitution.
Kerala courts have previously upheld the continued existence of the joint family system post-1976.
The earlier Presidential assent to the Kerala Act is irrelevant after the 2005 amendment. The State should have amended its law and obtained fresh assent.
Section 6(4) of the 2005 Act protects only registered transactions post-1976, highlighting a legal conflict that must be resolved under Article 254(2) of the Constitution.
State of Kerala:
Sri. S. Renjith argued that the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 and the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 operate in distinct legal fields.
The Kerala Act deals with the structure of joint families and creates a deemed partition, while the 2005 Amendment concerns inheritance and succession.
Since both Acts are framed under the same constitutional entry (Entry 5, List III – Concurrent List), there is no conflict or repugnancy.
He relied on the Chellamma Kamalamma decision and Supreme Court rulings in Gopalakrishnan C.S. and Annamma K.A. to support his view.
Judicial Evaluation
In this case, the Kerala High Court undertook a detailed judicial evaluation of the conflict between the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975.
Justice Easwaran observed that while the Kerala Act abolished the doctrine of right by birth and introduced a statutory partition deeming family members as tenants-in-common, it did not expressly abolish the joint family system.
The Court highlighted that
“The 2005 Central amendment to the Hindu Succession Act conferred coparcenary rights upon daughters by birth, placing them on an equal footing with sons. This amendment was intended to bring gender parity in property rights and was passed with knowledge of the Kerala law.”
Relying on Article 254 of the Constitution, the Court held that
“The Central law would prevail over the inconsistent State law in the absence of a renewed Presidential assent post-amendment.”
The Court also overruled earlier Kerala High Court judgments which had incorrectly held that no coparcenary rights existed in Kerala after 1976.
Citing the Supreme Court’s authoritative judgment in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, the Court reaffirmed that
“Daughters have an equal right in joint family property and that statutory or notional partitions under State law cannot defeat these rights.”
Thus, it was held that the plaintiffs (daughters) were entitled to their lawful share in the ancestral property.
Case Title: N.P.RAJANI & ORS VERSUS RADHA NAMBIDI PARAMBATH & ORS.
RSA NO. 436 OF 2018
READ JUDGMENT HERE
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
