The Supreme Court has observed that a Hindu daughter is capable of inheriting the self-acquired property or share received in the division of a coparcenary property after the death of her father.

This is the case of property in which the property under deliberation was a property acquired by Marappa Gounder himself. The question raised by the appellant was whether Kupayi Ammal, the only daughter of Late Gounder, would inherit by succession and whether the property would be transferred by survivorship or not?

Now the court was considering the question of whether a single daughter could inherit her father’s separate property (before the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956) or not?

Then to answer this question, the Supreme Court Bench also applied to Hindu law and judicial pronouncements, in which they held that a widow or daughter should receive a share in the division of self-acquired property or coparcenary property of a Hindu male. Has the right to. The intestate is well acknowledged not only under the old Hindu law but also under various judicial pronouncements.

“The succession of a widow or daughter’s self-acquired property or the share received in the division of the coparcenary property of a Hindu man’s will is recognized not only under the old customary Hindu law but also by various judicial pronouncements”.

The Court reported the following –

• Since the Hindu Laws of Inherited (Amendment) Act 1929, the Banaras, Bengal and Mithila sub-schools of Mitakshara identified only five female connections as widow, daughter, mother paternal grandmother and paternal great-grandmother heir to mother.
• The Madras Subschool also recognized the inheritance capacity of female heirs who are son’s daughter, daughter’s daughter and sister’s daughter, by naming them as heirs in the Hindu Laws (Amendment) Act, 1929 went. The son’s daughter and the daughter’s daughter are recorded as brothers in Bombay and Madras.
• Bombay School which is at the forefront of women, which perceived many female heirs comprising half-sister, father’s sister and married women in the family such as stepmother, son’s widow, brother’s widow and many other women. From all these facts it is clear that a daughter can inherit the property of the father individually.
• The 174th Law Commission also proposed reforms under Hindu law in its report on the property rights of women, stating that: “1.3.3 The Mitakshara Law recognizes succession, but property owned only by one person, male or female. only for. Women are hereby included as heirs of such property.”

Accordingly, the court observed –

“From the above, it is clear that the historical texts as well as the Smritis, articles are written by various eminent scholars and even judicial pronouncements have accepted the rights of women inheritor, wives. In which having a daughter is the most important. Women’s rights to sustenance in the family were very important rights in every respect and, overall, it seems that some announcers erred in drawing unfavorable assumptions from vague references to women’s succession. Mitakshara’s views on this matter also say the same. Nowhere does Vijneshwar support the view that women are not eligible of inheritance” (para 64-65)

“If the property of the intestate by a male Hindu is a self-acquired property or a property obtained in the division of a co-parcenery or a family property, it shall be substituted by survivorship and not by survivorship, and the daughter of such male Hindu is allowed such property shall be inherited in preference to other collateral.”

In this case, the court held that the property in question was Marappa Gounder’s self-acquired property while the household was in the United States after his death. Hence, his only daughter Kupeyi Ammal will inherit.