The Madras High Court recently ruled that Hindu daughters, as class-I legal heirs, can inherit their late father’s share of joint family property even if his their mother has subsequently remarried.
The remarriage part is particularly important as prior to 2005 the Hindu Succession Act said that women who remarried after their husband’s death could not inherit her husband’s property. But after 2005 this restriction was removed. Since this case relates to Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (prior to 2005), so the remarriage angle is important in this case.
Background of this judgement
This judgement came from a case involving Mr Venkatesan, who had a share in his Hindu family’s properties. After he passed away, his family members opposed his wife inheriting his share because she has remarried. However, Venkatesan’s daughter Lalithamani claimed her father’s share and even sold it to somebody else.
In short, this is how the property dispute arose between Lalithamani and her late father’s family. On one side Venkatesan’s family wanted to deny Lalithamani a share in the family property thereby keeping a bigger share for them and on one side Lalithamani already sold her share of the family property and wanted to protect this deal. If she loses the legitimate claim to her father’s share in the property, her deal turns bad and she may have to return the money.
On August 25, 2026, Lalithamani won the case in the Madras High Court and thus her deal was saved.
Why did Lalithamani win the case and get a share of her father’s family property?
Jahnavi Kohli, partner, and head of Private Client Practice at ANB Legal said to ET Wealth Online, the daughter (Lalithamani) won the case because the Madras High Court determined that the disqualification under Section 24 of the unamended Hindu Succession Act, 1956 applies exclusively to a remarrying widow and this does not extinguish the deceased father’s overall coparcenary interest, allowing it to pass to his other Class I legal heirs (Lalithamani in the present case).
Kohli explains the legal reasons as to why Lalithamani won:
- Section 24: The high court analysed Section 24 of the unamended Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and said that the unamended law dictates that a widow of a pre-deceased son cannot inherit the property of an intestate person if she has remarried by the date the succession opens. The Madras High Court emphasised that Section 24 restricts only the widow, not the other legal heirs.
- The court distinguished this scenario from cases involving Section 25 of the Act, where a coparcener is entirely disentitled to a share (and treated as a non-existent entity) for committing the murder of his father (Vellikannu vs. R Singaperumal and anr, reported in 2005 INSC 267). Under Section 24, the pre-deceased son coparcenary interest does not get extinguished. Instead, it continues to be available for other preferential Class I legal heirs, such as the children of the pre-deceased son.
- The restriction is not on the daughter: Venkatesan’s (father) wife never staked a claim to his family’s properties as his widow’s entitlement was forfeited upon her remarriage. However, their daughter Lalithamani being a class I legal heir was legally entitled to inherit his entire coparcenary interest upon his demise as per unamended section 24 of The Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Aadisha Shetty, also from ANB Legal says that the Madras High Court reached the conclusion that a widow’s remarriage does not cause the deceased son’s share to revert back to the other coparceners. Consequently, the court dismissed the execution petition, affirming that the daughter has legitimate right of inheritance of the estate and can legally deal with the property.
Also read: Daughters can’t claim a share in father’s property if…: HC lays down key condition for inheritance
Madras High Court discussion
Justice P.B. Balaji of Madras High Court passed this judgement.
Venkatesan’s wife cannot inherit his share of property due to unamended Hindu Succession Act
The Madras High Court said that this case relates to a timeline where unamended Hindu Succession Act prevailed. This means Section 24, which was omitted in 2005, was applicable in Venkatesan’s case.
The Section 24 of the unamended Hindu Succession Act disentitled a widow to any share of husband’s assets following a remarriage.
Venkatesan’s family mainly worked on this angle to disinherit Lalithamani from her late father’s share of the property.
Advocate S.Natarajan, representing Venkatesan’s family argued that since Venkatesan’s wife had decided to remarry, the undivided share of the deceased coparcener son (Venkatesan) would revert back to the other coparceners (his family), thereby enlarging their shares, and not to the daughter that the deceased coparcener left behind.
However, Advocate N.Ishtiaq Ahmed, representing Lalithamani (Venkatesan’s daughter), told the high court that even though Venkatesan’s widow has remarried, it would only affect her entitlement. There was no way that other legal heirs, like the daughter, Lalithamani, would lose her right to inherit the deceased father’ share.
Embargo on inheritance is on the widow not her child from 1st marriage
The Madras High Court observed that Section 24 of the unamended Hindu Succession Act indicated that a widow of a deceased son or a widow of a brother are not entitled to succeed to the property of an intestate, if the widow on the date of succession opening, has remarried.
The Madras High Court said: “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.”
In this present case, Lalithamani’s mother (widow) did not claim any entitlement to her late husband’s share in his family property.
The Madras High Court said: “The embargo is only on the widow and not on other legal heirs to succeed to the estate of the pre-deceased son.”
Also read: Father can’t relinquish daughter’s share in ancestral property to son; Know the legal position
Lalithamani inherited her late father’s share of his family property
The Madras High Court said that in this case, Lalithamani being the only class 1 legal heir (daughter of Venkatesan), inherited his entire coparcenary interest on his demise and she has already dealt with the property and third-party interest has flown.
Thus Lalithamani won the case in Madras High Court.
aniltikotekar4sme.com 