Arunachala Gounder (dead) v. Ponnuswamy case (2022)

 Arunachala Gounder (dead) v. Ponnuswamy case (2022)

In this case it takes about the daughters right to the father’s property and about the development of new amendment to daughter's property.

The most famous case of Vinita Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma in this case the supreme court stated that daughters have the rights to their ancestral property, through this case people was seemed to be not satisfied. Then the case got overruled in the case of Arunachala Gounder case in this there was a succession issues which was started since 1967 when Maratha Gounder father of kulyapir Gounder's was died. Kulyapir Gounder dead was actually was intestate death which means she didn't make any will or testament of her property.

When female Hindu dies intestated without making any will in this case the property of her to whom it  will get devolved? 

Hindu succession act, 1956

It has been devolved in two types:

1. Self-acquired property - it means that a property which is bought by self-owned money not of others, but not those which are inherited by the ancestors. 

2. Coparcenary property- it means of ancestral property, those types of property which has been inherited by the ancestors or by fore fathers. 

In previous time in coparcenary property right only son was considered as coparceners not the daughters, which means only by birth sons had the right over coparcenary property. After the new amendment act of 2005, the court declared that daughter will be also called as coparceners. Starting from birth daughter will be having the right over ancestors’ property. It also had the retrospective effect, it is that daughters who was Born before this new amendment will also get benefited by this coparcenary property right. 

In the above case of Arunachala Gounder case issues are 

Firstly, whether daughter has the right of fathers self-acquired property who died intestate or devolved on father heirs through survivorship? 

Secondly, whether a woman would have right over female's property who died interstate?

In this case kulyapir Gounder had inherited property from her father so according to the judgement this property would get devolved Over her father heirs. Since, in this judgement the main motive of the Judiciary and legislative was that after the death of the Hindu female intestated death and the property would return to the person from who she had inherited. 

According to first issue, justice S. Abdul Nazir and Krishna Murari said that daughters of male Hindu dying without a will be entitled to inherited Self- acquired and other properties obtained in the partition by the father.  Also, the first preference will be given to the daughters, but not to the brother's sons. 

Since in Vinita Sharma case court said that according to section 6 daughters will be considered as a coparcener and this section 6 was again got amendment in 2005, which had the retrospective effect.

According to second issues the court stated that if any Hindu female dies intestated then the property which she had inherited from the father or mother will get devolved on the father’s heirs, if she had acquired the property from her husband or father-in-law will get devolved over the husband heirs.

So, in this section 14, has made property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property will get converted and said that whenever a female Hindu dies intestated then it should refer to the section 15(2)(a), through referring to this section the court gave the judgement to this case the property of female dies intestated will get devolved upon Father's hairs. Which means kulyapir Gounder's her father heirs will be acquiring the property of her and so the son of Maratha Gounder's had its grandchildren which means the get devolved equal over his five son's children. 

This judgement was given against the verdict of madras high court.