Repugnancy of JFSAA with HSA
In N P Rajani v Radha Nambidi Parambath [2025:KER:49346], the High Court of Kerala declared that the Sections 3 and 4 of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act 1975 (JFSAA) are repugnant to Section 6 of the 2005 amendment of the Hindu Succession Act, and hence, the latter alone will prevail.
What the JFSSA says
As per Section 3 of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, no person can claim birthright in ancestral property and as per Section 4 of the Act, a Hindu Undivided Family in Kerala is deemed to have been partitioned and converted to tenancy-in-common.
Since the Section 3 and Section 4 of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 are repugnant to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, they cannot have any effect, the High Court declared.
HSA says women will have equal rights
On and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment Act), 2005, daughter of a Hindu who dies after 20.12.2004, in the State of Kerala is entitled to equal share in the ancestral property but a partition, which has been effected before the 20th day of December, 2004 will not be reconsidered as per Section 6 (5) of the HSA.
The key question of law in this case
This case was originated from a partition suit, seeking equal share in their late father’s ancestral property.
The key question of law before the court was whether the female plaintiffs can claim the right over the plaint schedule property as a coparcener along with the male member in view of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, even after the promulgation of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975, in view of the repugnancy relating to law making under Article 254(1) of the Constitution.
Sections 3 & 4 of the JFSAA have no effect due to repugnancy
The Article 254(1) of the Constitution states that if a state law conflicts with a law passed by Parliament on a matter within the Concurrent List, the parliamentary law will prevail, and the conflicting part of the state law will be void to the extent of the inconsistency.
That is why the court declared the Sections 3 & 4 of the JFSAA have become null and void and the Section 6 of the HAS prevails.
What the appellants and defendants argued
The appellants argued that they were entitled to equal inheritance under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, which grants daughters coparcenary rights by birth.
The defendants, countered the claim, citing a Will allegedly executed by the father in their favour and argued that the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975, excluded daughters from coparcenary rights in the State.
Finding of the High Court regarding repugnancy
The High Court found out that Sections 3 and 4 of the State Act are repugnant with that of section 6 of the Central Act.
The Special Government Pleader contended that the Joint Family Abolition Act had received the President’s assent on 10.8.1976 and hence no question of repugnancy arose. It was also pointed out that its validity was upheld by the High Court in Chellamma Kamalamma vs Narayana Pillai J [1993 KHC 35].
The High Court emphasised that the 1975 Kerala Act, despite its title, did not explicitly abolish the joint family system. It only provided for a ‘deemed partition’, converting coparcenary to tenancy in common, but did not destroy the underlying joint family structure.
High Court relied on Vineeth Sharma case
The High Court, relying on the ruling in Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma [ AIR 2020 SC 3717], which stated that daughters acquire coparcenary rights by birth, irrespective of the father’s survival past the 2005 amendment and did not accept notional/statutory partitions, declared that the father could not bequeath the entire ancestral property to one heir, as the law mandated equal shares among all legal heirs, including daughters.
The judgements declared as no good law
The decision clarified that prior High Court judgments like Babu v Ayillalath Arunapriya (2012), Kali Ammal & Another v Valliyammal & Others (2016) were no longer good law in the light of the Supreme Court decision in Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma [ AIR 2020 SC 3717].
Parliament does not want to abolish joint family as such
The High Court also opined that with the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, the Parliament had evinced the intention to continue the joint family system in the country and to confer benefits on a daughter by birth in it.
References
- N P Rajani v Radha Nambidi Parambath [2025:KER:49346]
- Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma [ AIR 2020 SC 3717]
- Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act 1975 (JFSAA)
- Hindu Succession Act, 1956
