In a significant ruling interpreting pre-1956 Hindu inheritance laws, the Kerala High Court has upheld the validity of a registered sale deed executed by a son in respect of his late father’s self-acquired property, dismissing the partition claim filed by the daughter’s legal heirs. The Court held that since the father had passed away before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force, his self-acquired property devolved entirely upon his son under the Mitakshara law, leaving the daughter with no share.
The Background
The case revolved around a 2.15-acre land situated in Kerala, originally owned by one Rama (name withheld), a Hindu governed by the Mitakshara school of law. Rama had one son, Hari, and one daughter, Yasodamma. In 1965, Hari, along with his wife and children, executed a registered sale deed transferring the land to a firm and its partners.
Years later, Yasodamma’s legal heirs approached the court, contending that they were entitled to a half share in the property and sought partition. They claimed that upon Rama’s death, his property should have been jointly inherited by both his son and daughter under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended in 2005.
Hari’s family, however, argued that Rama had died before 1956, and therefore the Hindu Succession Act did not apply. Under the traditional Mitakshara law of inheritance prevailing prior to 1956, they contended, the property devolved exclusively upon the son. Hence, the sale made by Hari was valid and binding.
Court’s Findings on Date of Death and Evidence
The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, in its judgment dated September 29, 2025 , ruled in favour of Hari and dismissed the appeal filed by Yasodamma’s legal heirs.
The Court noted that although it was pleaded that Rama died after 1956, no concrete evidence was produced to support that claim. The only testimony available was that of DW1, who stated that Rama had died in 1950 — a statement that remained unchallenged during the proceedings.
Further, the Court referred to a mortgage deed executed by Hari in 1954 in favour of a bank, observing that such a transaction indicated Rama’s demise before 1956, as Hari would not have otherwise had the authority to mortgage the property.
Since this finding was not contested by the plaintiffs during the hearing, the Court accepted that Rama had died before June 17, 1956, the date on which the Hindu Succession Act came into effect.
Analysis of Pre-1956 Hindu Law of Inheritance
The High Court delved deeply into the legal question — upon whom would the self-acquired property of a Hindu male governed by the Mitakshara law devolve if he died intestate before 1956?
Relying on historical legal texts and precedents, the Court explained that prior to the Hindu Succession Act, succession among Hindus was governed by traditional Shastric principles under the Mitakshara school. Under this system, even self-acquired property would pass exclusively to the male heirs — son, grandson, and great-grandson — and only in the absence of such male descendants would it devolve upon the widow or daughter.
The Court cited the Privy Council’s ruling in Katama Natchiar v. Srimut Rajah Moottoo Vijaya Raganadha Bodha Gooroo Sawmy Periya Odaya Taver (MANU/PR/0010/1863), which laid down that in southern India, a Hindu male’s self-acquired property descended to his male issue, and failing that, to other heirs.
Court Rejects Reliance on the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929
The plaintiffs had argued that under the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929, both male and female children were entitled to inherit equally in their father’s separate property. However, the High Court rejected this contention.
It held that the 1929 Act did not elevate the status of daughters to that of sons. Instead, it merely expanded the list of heirs who could succeed in the absence of male issue, such as the son’s daughter, daughter’s daughter, and sister’s son.
The Court observed:
“The Act contains nothing regarding a daughter’s rights or about conferring on her the same status as a son. Its purpose was not to modify the fundamental concepts of Hindu inheritance law but only to enlarge the circle of heirs in cases where no male issue survived.”
Reference to Supreme Court Precedent
The Bench also relied upon the Supreme Court’s ruling in Arunachala Gounder (Dead) by Lrs. v. Ponnusamy & Ors.(AIR 2022 SC 605), which clarified that under the pristine Mitakshara law, the self-acquired property of a Hindu male dying before 1956 devolved upon his male heirs, and only in the absence of male heirs would the property pass to his widow or daughter.
The Final Ruling
Concluding the case, the Kerala High Court held:
“When a Hindu governed by Mitakshara law died before 1956, his separate property would devolve entirely upon his son. A daughter could claim a right only in the absence of a male child. The 1929 Amendment did not alter this principle.”
Accordingly, the Court found that Rama’s property devolved fully upon Hari, and the sale executed by Hari, his wife, and children in 1965 was valid.
The Bench dismissed the appeal filed by Yasodamma’s legal heirs, stating:
“In the said circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment, wherein it was rightly held that the property is not partible. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.”
Case Details
Case Title: Sivananda Prabhu Versus S.N.Govinda Prabhu & Brothers
Case No.: RFA NO. 62 OF 2011
Date: 29/09/2025
Counsel For Petitioner: G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
Counsel For Respondent: K.S.RAJESH
Read More: Religious Conversion Of Hindus Into Christianity: Supreme Court Quashes Multiple FIRs
