Widow’s remarriage does not return deceased coparcener’s share to others; daughter inherits, Madras HC rules

The petitioner, the fourth defendant and decree-holder in O.S. No.91 of 1993, challenged the docket order dated 26 February 2018 by which the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, refused to entertain his execution application in E.P. No.618 of 2017.

The dispute concerned the coparcenary share of Venkatesan, a deceased coparcener whose widow had remarried.

The estate had devolved before the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, when Section 24 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, disqualified certain widows who remarried from inheriting as widows.

The fifth respondent, Venkatesan’s daughter and Class I heir, contended that only the widow was disqualified and that she inherited Venkatesan’s share, which she subsequently alienated to a third party.

Whether the remarriage of the widow of a deceased coparcener, attracting the pre-amendment Section 24 of the Hindu Succession Act, extinguished or caused the deceased coparcener’s interest to revert to the surviving coparceners?

Whether the deceased coparcener’s daughter, as a Class I legal heir, was entitled to inherit his entire coparcenary interest notwithstanding the widow’s disqualification arising from remarriage?

Whether the Subordinate Court was correct in refusing to entertain the petitioner’s execution proceedings on the basis that the daughter had inherited and dealt with the property?

The Court applied Section 24 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as it stood before its omission by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, under which the widow of a predeceased son, predeceased son of a predeceased son, or brother was disqualified from succeeding as such widow if she had remarried before succession opened.

The Court held that Section 24 imposed a personal disqualification upon the remarried widow but did not extinguish the deceased coparcener’s interest or prevent other preferential Class I heirs, including his daughter, from inheriting it.

The Court distinguished Sections 25 and 27 of the Act, which operate where an heir is disqualified for murdering the person through whom the inheritance is claimed and may consequently exclude succession through that disqualified person.

The decision in Vellikannu v. R. Singaperumal, 2005 INSC 267, was therefore held inapplicable because it concerned disqualification under Section 25 arising from murder, rather than widow’s remarriage under Section 24.

The Court found that the widow’s remarriage attracted the pre-amendment Section 24, but that provision merely prevented her from inheriting in the capacity of Venkatesan’s widow.

It did not treat Venkatesan as a non-existent person, nor did it cause his coparcenary interest to revert automatically to the other coparceners.

Unlike the situation under Section 25, where the murderer is excluded and succession through that person is affected, Venkatesan himself had incurred no disqualification.

His daughter, being his only Class I legal heir in the circumstances, was consequently entitled to inherit his entire share.

Since she had already dealt with the property and third-party rights had arisen, the petitioner’s contention that the share had reverted to the surviving coparceners could not be accepted.

The remarriage of Venkatesan’s widow did not result in the reversion of his coparcenary interest to the other coparceners; the widow alone was disqualified under Section 24, while Venkatesan’s daughter inherited the entire share as a Class I heir.

Finding no error in the Subordinate Court’s refusal to entertain the execution petition, the High Court dismissed CRP No.3576 of 2023 and the connected CMP No.22376 of 2023, without costs.