Widow’s Remarriage Cannot Deprive Daughter Of Property Share: Madras HC

The Madras High Court has held that a widow’s remarriage cannot deprive her deceased husband’s other Class I legal heirs, including his daughter, of his share in joint family property.

In an order passed on Aug 25, Justice PB Balaji clarified that the disqualification arising from a widow’s remarriage under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, applied only to the widow. It did not extinguish the deceased husband’s coparcenary interest or prevent his other Class I legal heirs from inheriting it.

Disqualification limited to widow

“The widow, as already discussed is not claiming any entitlement in the present case. The embargo is only on the widow and not on other legal heirs to succeed to the estate of the pre-deceased son,” Justice Balaji said.

The court was interpreting Section 24 of the Hindu Succession Act as it existed before its repeal in 2005. The provision barred the widow of a pre-deceased son or brother from inheriting if she had remarried before succession opened, Hindustan Times reports.

The court, however, made it clear that this restriction did not wipe out the deceased son’s coparcenary interest. His share remained available for inheritance by other preferential Class I legal heirs, including his mother or children.

A coparcener is a member of a Hindu joint family who has an interest in its ancestral property.

Daughter inherited entire share

The order came on a revision petition arising from a dispute over the share of Venkatesan, a deceased coparcener. His widow remarried after his death and never claimed a share in his estate.

Venkatesan’s only daughter, a Class I legal heir, inherited his entire share and subsequently sold parts of the property.

After she inherited the property and created third-party rights over it, one of Venkatesan’s relatives approached the court and disputed her rights over the property.

Relative challenges inheritance

The relative argued that Venkatesan’s widow had remarried before the 2005 amendment and that her inheritance rights therefore stood forfeited under the then-prevailing Section 24 of the Hindu Succession Act.

According to the relative, Venkatesan’s share consequently reverted to the other coparceners, enlarging their existing shares.

Justice Balaji rejected the argument.

“The short, but interesting point that arises for consideration in the present revision is as to whether the share of the deceased coparcener/son would go back to the other coparceners, when his wife had chosen to remarry after his demise or whether the daughter of the deceased coparcener son would inherit the entire share of the said deceased coparcener,” the judge said.

Court draws clear distinction

The High Court noted that there was no dispute that Venkatesan’s widow had remarried and had never claimed a share in his estate. His entire share went to his only daughter, who subsequently dealt with the property and created third-party interests.

The ruling draws an important distinction between the widow’s disqualification under the erstwhile provision and the independent inheritance rights of the deceased man’s other legal heirs. The court rejected the attempt to extend the widow’s disqualification to the daughter and thereby defeat her right of succession.

“Even a cursory glance of the above provision only indicates that a widow of a pre-deceased son or a widow of a brother are not entitled to succeed to the property of an intestate, if such widow on the date of succession opening, has remarried. The coparcenary interest of the pre-deceased son does not get extinguished unlike section 25 and continues to be available to be taken by the other preferential Class 1 legal heirs, say the mother or children of the pre-deceased son,” the court said.

Remarriage does not erase daughter’s right

Since Venkatesan’s daughter was his only Class I legal heir, the court held that she inherited his entire coparcenary interest.

The present case being the only the class 1 legal heirs, the 5th respondent, daughter of Venkatesan has inherited his entire coparcenary interest on his demise and as already pointed out she has already dealt with the property and third-party interest has flown,” the court said.

The ruling reinforces the principle that a statutory disqualification attached to one heir cannot automatically be used to extinguish the independent succession rights of another heir. In this case, the widow’s remarriage did not cause Venkatesan’s share to revert to the other coparceners when his daughter was entitled to inherit it.

The High Court therefore declined to accept the contention that Venkatesan’s entire coparcenary interest reverted to the other coparceners merely because his widow remarried.

Justice Balaji found no error in the subordinate court’s refusal to entertain the execution petition and dismissed the revision petition.