<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\nThe Court determined that it is\nessential to investigate the history and basis of Hindu law. The Vedas,\nShrutis, and Smritis are said to be the basis of Hindu law. It is said that\nLord Brahma himself wrote the Smritis, which contain the Dharma Shastra. The\ntextbooks attributed to erudite sages Manu, Yajnavalchya, Vishnu, Parasara, and\nGautama, among others, are known as the Sanhitas and Smritis and are regarded\nas the true texts of Hinduism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Through these authoritative\ntexts, Hindu law has evolved continuously. In addition to these sources,\ncustoms, equity, fairness, a decent conscience, and court judgements have all\ncontributed to the establishment of Hindu law. After examining both\nconventional Hindu law and legal opinions, the Supreme Court reached this\nresult, observing that both old customary Hindu law and multiple judicial\njudgements recognised a daughter’s right to inherit the self-acquired property\nof a Hindu male dying intestate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Following this, the Apex Court\nmade the following observations after considering customary Hindu law: The\nMitakshara School of Law is one of the most important law schools in the\ncountry, offering a wide range of practise areas. With a few minor exceptions,\nit applies to the vast majority of India, but the core concepts remain the\nsame. The Mitakshara law recognises succession by inheritance, but only for\nproperty owned individually by a single person, male or female.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Women are included in the\nMitakshara School as prospective heirs to the self-acquired property. According\nto the summary of “Yajnavalkya,” “Whatever anyone has\nself-acquired as an increment without lessening the paternal estate, similarly\na present from a friend or a marriage gift, does not belong to the\nco-heirs.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Hon’ble Court also noted\nManu’s statement in Vyavastha Chandrika that “a man’s son is even as\nhimself, and his daughter is equal to the son.” “How can anybody else\nreceive his property, despite her survival, who is, as it were, himself?”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Mitakshara sub-schools of\nBengal, Benares, and Mithila acknowledged only five female relatives as being\neligible to inherit: widow, daughter, mother, paternal grandmother, and paternal\ngreat-grandmother.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Before the Hindu Law of\nInheritance (Amendment) Act of 1929, this existed. A number of female heirs who\nare the son’s daughter, daughter’s daughter, and sister were specifically\nmentioned as heirs in the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929, and\nthe Madras sub-school accepted their inheritable ability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The daughter of the son and the\ndaughter of the daughter were bands in Bombay and Madras. Aside from a\nhalf-sister, a father’s sister, and women married into the family such as a\nstepmother, a son’s widow, a brother’s widow, and numerous other women\nclassified as bands, the Bombay school, which is most tolerant of women,\nrecognised a number of different female heirs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The above factors make it plainly\nclear that a daughter may have properly acquired her father’s separate\ninheritance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Court next considered the\nsignificant decisions for the adjudication of the subject before it. The case\nof Katama Natchiar v. Srimut Rajah Mootoo Vijaya Raganadha, decided by the\nPrivy Council in 1863, was mentioned. Swamy, Bodha Gooroo <\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>Viewpoint<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\nAccording to Periya Odaya Tavern,\n“in the event of a Hindu male dying intestate, succession is to be decided\nby inheritance rather than survivorship.” When a male family member dies,\nthe property belongs to the widow, who subsequently gives it to the\ndaughter.” Overall, it appears that some observers erred in drawing\nnegative conclusions from the older Smritis’ imprecise references about women’s\nsuccession. Women’s rights to upkeep in the family have always been vitally\nimportant. It is clear what the Mitakshara believe about women’s rights in\nrelation to the current crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>Judgement<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\nEven though the family was still\ntogether when Marappa Gounder died intestate, the property in question will\npass to his only surviving daughter, Kupayee Ammal, by inheritance rather than\nsurvivorship because it was acknowledged to be Marappa Gounder’s self-acquired\nproperty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In contrast to the then-existing\nrestricted estate of women, the Hindu Succession Act recognises the rights of\nwomen as absolute, bringing equality between men and women in issues of\nproperty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The legislature adopted Section\n14(1) of the Act to address the limitation that a Hindu woman faced in that she\ncould not inherit an absolute interest in the assets, only a life interest.\nSection 15 of the Hindu Inheritance Act of 1956 turned all restricted estates\nowned by women into absolute estates, and the inheritance of these assets would\ntake place in the absence of a deed or testament.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The exclusions listed in\nsub-Section (2) of Section 158 only apply when a Hindu female passes away\nwithout leaving any immediate heirs, such as her son or daughter or the\noffspring of the deceased son or daughter. As a result, if a Hindu woman dies\nintestate and without children, the property she got from her parents would go\nto the descendants of her father, while the property she inherited from her\nhusband or father-in-law would go to the heirs of the husband. The major goal\nof Section 15(2), which was passed by the legislature, is to ensure that the\noriginal owner of the inheritance of a female Hindu who dies intestate and\nwithout issue receives it back.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As a result, the appeal is\ngranted, and the contested ruling and decree issued by the trial court are\nquashed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n