Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeOther LawsKerala High Court Upholds Daughters’ Coparcenary Rights Under Hindu Succession Amendment Act,...

Kerala High Court Upholds Daughters’ Coparcenary Rights Under Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The High Court of Kerala has ruled that daughters are entitled to equal coparcenary rights under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, even in the face of the earlier Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975.

A bench of Justice Easwaran S. held that the 2005 Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act confers daughters equal coparcenary rights by birth, which Parliament intended to apply universally, including in Kerala. The Kerala Act of 1975 does not explicitly abolish the joint family system, but merely replaced joint tenancy with tenancy-in-common and removed birth rights. Therefore, it cannot override the central law on succession post-2005.

The bench stated that the doctrine of repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution applies in this case. Since both central and state laws fall under the Concurrent List, and the central law was enacted later, the 2005 Amendment prevails. The previous judgments of this court in Ayillalath Arunapriya and Kali Ammal, which denied the applicability of the 2005 Amendment in Kerala, do not lay down the correct law and are overruled.

The case involved a family dispute over the partition of ancestral property originally belonging to the Nambidi Parambath Tharawad. The appellants—daughters of the deceased—had filed a suit seeking partition, asserting that they were entitled to equal shares as per the 2005 Amendment. The trial court dismissed the suit based on the validity of a will favoring the son. However, the first appellate court partly upheld their claim and granted a preliminary decree allotting them fractional shares.

At the heart of the legal conflict was whether the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975—which abolished the doctrine of right by birth and deemed partitioned joint family properties—could override the central legislation that later reinstated coparcenary rights for daughters.

The court emphasized that a daughter’s rights under the 2005 amendment are not dependent on whether her father or coparcener was alive at the time of the amendment. The ruling extensively cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) to reiterate the legal standing of daughters in Mitakshara coparcenary property.

Case Details

Case Title: N.P.Rajani Versus Radha Nambidi Parambath

Case No.: RSA NO. 436 OF 2018

Date: 7/07/2025 

Counsel For  Petitioner: Nirmal.S, Veena Hari

Counsel For Respondent: Shyam Padman 

Read More: Kerala High Court Upholds Daughters’ Coparcenary Rights Under Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 7 SEPTEMBER, 2026

Here’s the Tax Law Daily Bulletin for  September 7, 2026.GST57TH GST COUNCIL MEETING POSTPONED...

Appeal Filing Enabled For Cases Involving NIL or Zero Demand Amount: GSTN 

The Goods and Service Tax Network (GSTN) has enabled the filing of appeal for...

Supreme Court Upholds Quashing of Rs. 363 Crore GST Demand Against Vodafone

The Supreme Court has refused to interfere with a Bombay High Court judgment quashing...

Why do GST Dept. Recover ITC From Buyers When Suppliers Fail to Deposit Tax?

A purchaser may hold a valid tax invoice, receive the goods or services, pay...

More like this

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 7 SEPTEMBER, 2026

Here’s the Tax Law Daily Bulletin for  September 7, 2026.GST57TH GST COUNCIL MEETING POSTPONED...

Appeal Filing Enabled For Cases Involving NIL or Zero Demand Amount: GSTN 

The Goods and Service Tax Network (GSTN) has enabled the filing of appeal for...

Supreme Court Upholds Quashing of Rs. 363 Crore GST Demand Against Vodafone

The Supreme Court has refused to interfere with a Bombay High Court judgment quashing...