Widow’s remarriage cannot deprive daughter of property share: Madras HC

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

The Madras High Court said that the remarriage of a widow cannot deprive her deceased husband’s other “Class I heirs”, such as his daughter, of his share in joint family property.

A coparcener under the law is a member of a Hindu joint family who has an interest in its ancestral property. (Representational/Pixabay)

In an order passed on August 25, justice PB Balaji clarified that the disqualification arising from the widow’s remarriage under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, operates only against the widow and does not extinguish the deceased husband’s coparcenary interest or prevent his other Class I heirs from inheriting it.

“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The court interpreted section 24 of the Act, as it existed before it was repealed in 2005. The provision barred a widow of a pre-deceased son or brother from inheriting if she remarried before succession opened. It did not extinguish the deceased son’s coparcenary interest, which remained available for inheritance by his other preferential Class I legal heirs, including his mother or children.

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

The court passed its orders while hearing a revision petition arising from a dispute over the share of Venkatesan, a deceased coparcener. Venkatesan’s widow remarried after his death and never claimed any share in his estate. His only daughter, who was a Class I legal heir, inherited his entire share and subsequently sold off some parts of such property.

However, after the daughter inherited the property and created third-party rights over it, one of Venkatesan’s relatives moved the court disputing her rights over the property.

The relative argued that since Venkatesan’s widow remarried before the 2005 amendment and so her rights stood forfeited under the then-prevailing section 24 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

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

Justice Balaji however, 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.

The high court noted that there was no dispute that Venkatesan’s widow remarried and never claimed any share in his estate. His entire share went to his only daughter, who also dealt with the property and created third-party interests. It therefore, rejected the attempt to use the widow’s disqualification to defeat the daughter’s independent 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.”

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

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