Can a daughter inherit father’s ancestral property after mother remarries? Madras High Court gives key ruling

A daughter can inherit her deceased father’s share in joint family property even if her mother remarried, the Madras High Court has held. The court clarified that a disqualification applicable to a remarried widow cannot automatically be extended to the deceased man’s other Class I legal heirs.

The ruling came in a dispute over the property of Venkatesan, a deceased coparcener in a Hindu joint family. His wife remarried after his death and did not claim any share in his estate. His daughter, who was his only Class I legal heir in the case, inherited his entire coparcenary interest and subsequently dealt with the property.

The dispute arose when another coparcener challenged the daughter’s entitlement. The argument was that because Venkatesan’s widow had remarried, her disqualification should mean that his share returned to the surviving coparceners rather than passing to his daughter.

Justice P.B. Balaji rejected this argument and dismissed the revision petition on 25 August.

Mother’s remarriage does not wipe out father’s share

The case turned on Section 24 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as it stood before the provision was omitted by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.

The provision dealt with certain widows who remarried. It stated that a widow of a predeceased son or brother, among others covered by the provision, would not be entitled to succeed to an intestate’s property as such widow if she had remarried when succession opened.

In this case, there was no dispute that Venkatesan’s widow had remarried. The court also noted that she had never claimed any entitlement in his estate.

The question was whether her disqualification meant that Venkatesan’s entire interest in the joint family property would revert to the other coparceners.

Justice Balaji held that the disqualification under the old Section 24 was limited to the widow. It did not extinguish the coparcenary interest of the deceased man or prevent other preferential Class I heirs from inheriting it.

“The embargo is only on the widow and not on other legal heirs,” the court said.

Since Venkatesan’s daughter was his only Class I legal heir in the case, the court held that she inherited his entire coparcenary interest after his death. The judgment also noted that she had subsequently dealt with the property and third-party interests had been created.

Why the Supreme Court case cited by petitioner did not apply

The petitioner had relied on an earlier Supreme Court judgment, Vellikannu v. R. Singaperumal, to argue that the daughter could not claim through her father.

The Madras High Court, however, said that precedent involved a different legal situation.

In Vellikannu, the disqualification arose because the deceased coparcener had murdered his own father. The Supreme Court had considered the consequences of disqualification under Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, which deals with a person being disqualified from inheriting because of murder.

Justice Balaji said the present dispute involved Section 24 and remarriage, not Section 25 and murder. Therefore, the reasoning of the Supreme Court judgment could not be applied to make Venkatesan’s daughter lose her inheritance.

The High Court consequently rejected the argument that Venkatesan’s share automatically reverted to the surviving coparceners after his widow remarried.

The court found no error in the lower court’s refusal to entertain the execution petition and dismissed the civil revision petition and connected miscellaneous petition without costs.

What this means for families

The ruling is particularly relevant to disputes involving older estates where the succession opened before the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act. It does not mean that a widow’s remarriage today automatically affects a daughter’s inheritance rights. Rather, the Madras High Court was interpreting the law applicable to the specific estate before it, including the erstwhile Section 24.

The key takeaway from the judgment is that where a statutory disqualification attaches to one heir, it cannot automatically be extended to another independent legal heir. In this case, the mother’s remarriage did not erase the daughter’s right to succeed to her deceased father’s coparcenary interest.