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.
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. The court interpreted section 24 of the Act, as it existed before it was repealed in 2005.
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 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. “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.” It therefore, rejected the attempt to use the widow’s disqualification to defeat the daughter’s independent right of succession.
“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.
